PDA

View Full Version : Player-led games vs. GM-led games



Pages : [1] 2 3

HidesHisEyes
2016-10-30, 06:26 AM
My relentless procrastinative thinking about RPGs, and D&D in particular, has led me to a certain way of categorising games and I'm interested in seeing if people agree with this model and if so which type of game they prefer.

There are GM-led games and player-led games. In the GM-led game, the GM presents a scenario with a goal, and the players engage with that scenario and try to achieve that goal. In a player-led game the GM provides only an environment, a world, and the players explore it at their leisure and choose a goal themselves; the GM is there to facilitate this process and make it as much fun as possible.

I think this is slightly different form the distinction between "linear" and "sandbox" games. The way I see it, if the GM presents a small scenario - a village and its surroundings, even a single dungeon - with a definite goal but leaves the players to figure out how to go about achieving the goal, that's essentially a miniature sandbox. But it's still a GM-led adventure because the GM chose the objective, not the players.

Now an admission: it seems that the majority of players want player-led adventures. Player agency seems to be by far most people's first priority, and freedom to achieve a goal however you like is meaningless if the goal has been dictated by the GM. I feel I'm very much in a minority in that, both as a player and as a GM, I favour GM-led adventures. I find player-led adventures often fun but not ultimately satisfying. They sprawl out in too many directions, they go on indefinitely and tend to involve at least as much deciding what to do as doing. Most of all they become vague, incoherent. There's a story but it's baggy and stretched out, like a novel that hasn't been edited. There's a lack of focus. To me, total player agency is not worth this.

By contrast, in a good GM-led adventure (whether it's a published module or something the GM designed themselves) I feel like I've taken part in something tangible, something that's a work in the sense that a novel or film is a work. It seems paradoxical, considering that the player-led game is intended to give you the chance to properly explore and roleplay your character, but as a player I find myself much more able to do this if my character is dropped into the GM's scenario than if he's left to wander around and decide for himself what to do.

Of course it is entirely subjective, and I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind about how RPGs "should" be played. What I am interested in is getting an idea of how many people feel the same way as me. Do you prefer GM-led adventures? Do you prefer player-led adventures? Do you think it's a false dichotomy and I'm talking ****e?

Quertus
2016-10-30, 07:03 AM
Well, let's borrow an example from another thread: the DM wants to run "slay the dragon", the players want to run "create dragon-hide armor". In that scenario, things are going to feel very unsatisfying unless things play out according to the player-led model.

So, IME, even in a DM-led model, the DM needs to be able to switch to the player-led model, and needs to recognize when to do so.

That having been said...

To borrow from another thread, sometimes, the players are floundering without direction. In that scenario, you need to be able to and know when to have the "man with a gun" enter the room.

So, IME, even in a player-led model, the DM needs to be able to switch to the DM-led model, and needs to recognize when to do so.

I think dogmatic adherence to either is very capable of producing anti-fun.

Segev
2016-10-30, 10:18 AM
By the OP's definitions, most games need to be GM-led. Most players need some sort of hook to introduce the setting and NPCs to them. It can become player-led as their goals form more firmly, but even then the GM will need to create the challenges in their path

Friv
2016-10-30, 11:57 AM
My preference is for a GM-led first session, followed by a player-led campaign.

A GM-led opening provides context, creates plot hooks, and establishes context, and then the players can take it from there.

Vrock_Summoner
2016-10-30, 12:19 PM
My preference is for a GM-led first session, followed by a player-led campaign.

A GM-led opening provides context, creates plot hooks, and establishes context, and then the players can take it from there.
This is fairly close to my approach as well.

That said, I wouldn't say my game is completely player-run, for two main reasons. One, the world around them is organic - sometimes they'll encounter unexpected difficulties from other things in the setting while trying to do what they want, or sometimes they'll make enemies in the goings-about of their business (and those enemies won't just disappear because the players find them inconvenient), and sometimes those other forces will respond to changing circumstances that may or may not have anything to do with the PCs and come out to play. In addition, the players can generally choose to ignore any issue they can get away from fast enough, but that doesn't mean they're freed from the burden of consequences - "you guys let the dark army wander by without trouble? Sure, they set up base in the town and inflict crushing poverty on the people while funneling all their resources towards the larger military campaign. Now if you want to fight them later it'll be harder."

And then, in my current campaign, there are semi-regular reality-ending abominations that can't just be ignored outright, but at this point my players are finding ways to avoid killing those while still dealing with the problem almost half the time.

shadow_archmagi
2016-10-30, 01:03 PM
I think the problem with the sandbox games you were in was that nobody was experienced in the right ways.

So, the generic D&D adventure goes like this:

DM: There's a dragon. [presents scenario]
PC: I fight it! [reacts]
DM: It breathes fire! [action]
PC: Well then I'll do A BARREL ROLL [reaction]

This means that most DMs spend most of their time providing things for players to react to. It's thus only natural that many PCs will really struggle to act. There's a really good post I can't find right now about how a sandbox game starring Superman would be incredibly boring by default, because he's only interested in reacting to unusual circumstances- on a peaceful, normal day, Superman is content.

Thus, in order to take actions (rather than reactions) either the DM needs to write a super crummy world ("Okay, so there's eight lich kings at war with nine dragon kings in a 136 way free for all, the bear plague, the skeleton pirates, and a mind flayer cult. Oh, and local crime is up, there's a mugging spree. Which one do you stop first?") or the players need to have amoral goals. (VOCAB NOTE: Amoral and Immoral are different. Amoral just means not related to- collecting all 10 seasons of Friends or building a giant bronze statue of yourself or building a giant library are morally neutral goals.) Building characters like that is a weird thing most PCs aren't practiced at, but it can work.

Likewise, most DMs aren't used to reacting. Normally, the difficulty is in place, and the player overcomes it. Here, the player is coming, and the DM must provide the difficulty afterward. As anyone that's ever been in a game can attest, DM reactions are often knee-jerk and unsatisfying. "Uh, what's a library problem, uh, IT'S ALL ON FIRE NOW. Bam! Obstacle. I'm good at this."

---
In general, though, I don't think it makes a big difference who picks the scenario. The way I run games is that every session ends with the PCs declaring their intentions for next session, and then I prep that scenario. Thus, sometimes I tell the PCs there's a dragon and they choose to fight it, other times they announce that they'd like to buy a gold mine, and I choose what's involved in that. Then the next session starts about the same as it would if I'd purchased "Golems and Goldmines" and announced to the PCs that their next adventure would be in a gold mine.
---

Satinavian
2016-10-30, 01:30 PM
I don't think the distinction is too useful.

Either we have a campaign with a goal and everyone agreed with the campaign and goal before characters were chosen/created and the DM started to prepare it or we have a couple of smaller adventures. In the latter case the DM regularly asks the Players what their PCs want/are going to do after the current adventure and then uses this information to prepare the next session the same way he would prepare his own scenario.

NichG
2016-10-30, 02:21 PM
I think the tricky thing is, there are positive and negative emotions associated with different aspects of this, on each side of the table. That is to say, there are things that players 'do not want' and things that players 'do want' (and, often, same goes for the GM), and the way these get communicated is sometimes unhelpfully incomplete.

Someone might say 'I want a player-led game' and someone else might say 'I don't want a GM-led game'. But those are very different situations. A player who 'does not want a GM-led game' might be put off by the way the GM might behaves more than they have an active interest in leading things, so in that case its more that the GM has to avoid coming across as autocratic and controlling, rather than that the GM should just make a sandbox and step back and see what happens. The sandbox might well stagnate and go nowhere, because while the players don't want the GM to lead, they don't necessarily have ideas to lead with either.

I think, for a player-led game to be successful, you need a player who actually has big plans and huge ideas - not just 'lets get ourselves a gear upgrade', but 'I want us to be a band of mercenaries trying to take down the sorceror kings' or 'I want us to be a bunch of thieves who organize a slave revolt' or 'lets all start religions and become gods!'. But not every player who says they like player-led games is that kind of player who can actually make them work well - they may just not like autocratic GMs.

dropbear8mybaby
2016-10-30, 03:01 PM
As a GM I would kill for a group that could lead. But I've never found one that could. Whenever I've tried, the game flounders and stagnates and the players end up asking me what to do. I don't know why it is but seemingly intelligent people can get to a table and suddenly become retards. I've presented players with so many choices and yet they've taken none of them. When asked later on they always reply, "Oh, I didn't realise that," or, "Yeah, I don't know why we did that."

In one instance an NPC stole 3,000 gold off of them and instead of finding out why or chasing it down, they simply left town when there wasn't even any reason for them to leave town. I asked them afterwards why they didn't pursue and they were like, "Yeah, we probably should've done that and we don't know why we didn't."

So I'm at a loss to explain it or understand it. I've actively tried to encourage groups to lead themselves, find their own stories, chase down clues, etc. in a sandbox and yet never been able to make it work. So my games always end up with me leading by presenting very simple, very obvious objectives. Players seem to be happy with it. I think it comes down to people not really knowing what they want. They'll say they want open environment and yet be bored by an open environment. They'll say they don't want to be railroaded and yet complain that they don't have clear objectives on a set path.

I've come to the conclusion that as long as people are laughing and keep wanting me to DM, that I'm doing it "right" and should just stop trying to do it any differently.

Darth Ultron
2016-10-30, 04:49 PM
I don't think the distinction is too useful.


Players tend to make a big deal about it.

First you have the classic game: The players just want to play and have fun and will go on any adventure the DM puts in front of them.

Next you get the player input: The players say an often vague thing like ''we want to kill a dragon'', and then the DM makes the adventure and the players go on it...just like a classic game.

then you finally get to the player lead game: So here the DM makes a big deal about how they don't do anything except create some random stuff. Then the players take the lead and according to the theory somehow make an amazing game far better then any other game by doing something that no one can really say what it is...but it is awesome.

Of course the ''player lead'' game is just an illusion, unless your playing a pure game of randomness, as such a game will after a couple of minutes become a player input game and then a classic game.

For example: Say the DM makes a bunch of random stuff but no plot or story or anything complcated like that. Then the players come along and feel that they have tons of ''player agency'' or whatever as they ''explore'' and ''interact'' with the world. Say they do that for hours of lots of fun free form role playing, then eventually they will want to ''get around the playing for real''. So then they will pick one of the random things the DM made or make up and new one and go right back to ''the DM makes an adventure and the players go through it.''

The last one lets the players say ''this was our idea'', but the reality is that the DM just makes whatever adventure they want to make, no matter what the idea was....

Quertus
2016-10-30, 05:17 PM
I think the tricky thing is, there are positive and negative emotions associated with different aspects of this, on each side of the table. That is to say, there are things that players 'do not want' and things that players 'do want' (and, often, same goes for the GM), and the way these get communicated is sometimes unhelpfully incomplete.

Someone might say 'I want a player-led game' and someone else might say 'I don't want a GM-led game'. But those are very different situations. A player who 'does not want a GM-led game' might be put off by the way the GM might behaves more than they have an active interest in leading things, so in that case its more that the GM has to avoid coming across as autocratic and controlling, rather than that the GM should just make a sandbox and step back and see what happens. The sandbox might well stagnate and go nowhere, because while the players don't want the GM to lead, they don't necessarily have ideas to lead with either.

I think, for a player-led game to be successful, you need a player who actually has big plans and huge ideas - not just 'lets get ourselves a gear upgrade', but 'I want us to be a band of mercenaries trying to take down the sorceror kings' or 'I want us to be a bunch of thieves who organize a slave revolt' or 'lets all start religions and become gods!'. But not every player who says they like player-led games is that kind of player who can actually make them work well - they may just not like autocratic GMs.

Allow me to complicate this further. I can be a player with big plans - but not always. Rarely do I come to the table with a big idea. The combination of the character x what the DM presents usually determines how big and how crazy of ideas I'll come up with in a game.

I like player-led games. But, for me to take the lead, I need the DM to do a great job stocking the sandbox. Give me a Zen garden, and we'll both be bored. Put in just cars, or just dolls, or just musical instruments, etc etc, and it's anyone's guess whether that will resonate with my character. But cram your sandbox full of different things, and keep shelves and shelves of potential items to toss in, and now we're talking.

Solaris
2016-10-30, 08:17 PM
As a GM I would kill for a group that could lead. But I've never found one that could. Whenever I've tried, the game flounders and stagnates and the players end up asking me what to do. I don't know why it is but seemingly intelligent people can get to a table and suddenly become retards. I've presented players with so many choices and yet they've taken none of them. When asked later on they always reply, "Oh, I didn't realise that," or, "Yeah, I don't know why we did that."

In one instance an NPC stole 3,000 gold off of them and instead of finding out why or chasing it down, they simply left town when there wasn't even any reason for them to leave town. I asked them afterwards why they didn't pursue and they were like, "Yeah, we probably should've done that and we don't know why we didn't."

So I'm at a loss to explain it or understand it. I've actively tried to encourage groups to lead themselves, find their own stories, chase down clues, etc. in a sandbox and yet never been able to make it work. So my games always end up with me leading by presenting very simple, very obvious objectives. Players seem to be happy with it. I think it comes down to people not really knowing what they want. They'll say they want open environment and yet be bored by an open environment. They'll say they don't want to be railroaded and yet complain that they don't have clear objectives on a set path.

I've come to the conclusion that as long as people are laughing and keep wanting me to DM, that I'm doing it "right" and should just stop trying to do it any differently.

This has largely been my experience, too. "Sandbox" sounds good, and lots of players think they want it, but really all they want is their hands held and to be led from one adventure to the next. I've never had a player who I would consider actually good at sandbox, and this includes the games where I explicitly advertised it as a sandbox game and told them that the plot - if any - would be as an emergent property of their actions in the setting.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-10-30, 08:19 PM
For sandboxes to work the players need to play a big part in helping create the setting, in my opinion. Anything that isn't already defined is fair game for the players to define and find meaning for themselves in.

PairO'Dice Lost
2016-10-31, 01:06 AM
This has largely been my experience, too. "Sandbox" sounds good, and lots of players think they want it, but really all they want is their hands held and to be led from one adventure to the next.

The campaign I'm currently running is a good example of this: after our last campaign ended, I sent a poll out to all my players asking what kind of setting they wanted, what kind of plot, what kind of game style, etc., and the consensus was "we want to try an AD&D-ish hexcrawl-y sandbox campaign." So I drew up a map, filled out random encounter tables, wrote up detailed downtime and exploration rules, and so forth, and we proceeded to play our hexcrawl-y sandbox. At the end of the third session, I asked what people thought of the game so far (since none had played any games that were either "old school" or hexcrawl-y or sandbox-y before) and the feedback I got was basically "It's really fun so far, but when are we going to find the main plot?" :smallannoyed:


I've never had a player who I would consider actually good at sandbox, and this includes the games where I explicitly advertised it as a sandbox game and told them that the plot - if any - would be as an emergent property of their actions in the setting.

I've run into several players who I'd say legitimately "get" sandbox play, but the problem is that you really need at least half the group to be players of that type, or the non-sandbox follow-the-plot majority will view the sandboxers as detracting from "the real game" and derail the player-driven stuff to wait on the DM's next plot hook. And once again I speak from experience. :smallsigh:

2D8HP
2016-11-04, 10:22 PM
. At the end of the third session, I asked what people thought of the game so far (since none had played any games that were either "old school" or hexcrawl-y or sandbox-y before) and the feedback I got was basically "It's really fun so far, but when are we going to find the main plot?" :smallannoyed:I had the opposite problem. I played D&D in "Ancient times", and just started playing again after a very long break, and the whole "hero of a story" PC, instead of "fragile, wandering treasure robber" as PC's has been a big adjustment!

Thrudd
2016-11-04, 11:26 PM
I think "player led" vs "GM led" is a false dichotomy. The players' choices are meaningless outside the context of the setting and the world the GM has provided. The GM decides what exists: even if the players are completely free to choose anything they want to do in the game world, they are restricted by the setting the GM has created. So they can choose to go anywhere in the world the GM has created - the GM has still created it and decides what is there, even if it is happening spur of the moment, completely improvised. By definition, the GM needs to lead the game.

The most successful games, I think, or at least the most satisfying ones for the most people, are games with a clear premise, with clear roles for the players that are adhered to. That doesn't mean a pre-prepared story: not at all. But it means the game is about something fairly specific and the players know and agree what it is they are supposed to be doing. They are treasure hunters that explore dungeons and ruins and wildernesses. Or they are secret agents who go on missions for an agency. Or they are investigators who look into supernatural mysteries. When the players understand their role in the world, the GM can design the game so that they can pursue the game objectives in any way they like. Maybe there are clues to a number of different mysteries around the city, they can pursue any of them they want. There are rumors of a number of different dungeons and lost treasures, the players can follow any leads that sound enticing in any way they want. The GM still needs to create all those things.

You can't have a coherent game with a group of players who each think the game should be about something different, and a GM that tries to run a game that way will have lots of trouble. If the players won't decide what it is they want or are supposed to be doing, then the GM can't prepare things for them to interact with. If that is what is meant by "player led", then it rarely turns out well.

The players lead the flow and direction of the action, the GM leads the content and reactions of the environment, and the game rules dictate outcomes of actions and interactions.

Cluedrew
2016-11-05, 11:40 AM
I think it might be a useful way to examine games. It may not be quite as clean as one or the other (there are all sorts of in-between places) but who... advances the game / adds ideas / keeps things from growing stale is an important aspect of the game.

Of course even if you are not leading that doesn't mean you are doing nothing. The divide (as I see it) is along the act/react line and reacting well can still take work to do well to create a good game. The players still have to plan to get through the dungeon and the GM has to create the world and the obstacles as the party advances.

Personally my group does very player-led campaigns. Of course we play a system where the setting is laid out by the players at the beginning of session one (with some guidelines) and we don't exactly make it hard on the GM to throw danger at the party. The expression a old school dungeon crawler DM would of had when we told them we were dropping half the party, which amounted to one combat ready character, in middle of the danger zone with no means of exit would be... I imagine either disbelief or raw glee.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-05, 01:25 PM
basically "It's really fun so far, but when are we going to find the main plot?" :smallannoyed:


I've run in to this too. I lot of players say the want a sandbox game or a player-led game, but don't. I guess, like so many things, they just hear about it and assume they want it.

thirdkingdom
2016-11-05, 02:10 PM
This has largely been my experience, too. "Sandbox" sounds good, and lots of players think they want it, but really all they want is their hands held and to be led from one adventure to the next. I've never had a player who I would consider actually good at sandbox, and this includes the games where I explicitly advertised it as a sandbox game and told them that the plot - if any - would be as an emergent property of their actions in the setting.


The campaign I'm currently running is a good example of this: after our last campaign ended, I sent a poll out to all my players asking what kind of setting they wanted, what kind of plot, what kind of game style, etc., and the consensus was "we want to try an AD&D-ish hexcrawl-y sandbox campaign." So I drew up a map, filled out random encounter tables, wrote up detailed downtime and exploration rules, and so forth, and we proceeded to play our hexcrawl-y sandbox. At the end of the third session, I asked what people thought of the game so far (since none had played any games that were either "old school" or hexcrawl-y or sandbox-y before) and the feedback I got was basically "It's really fun so far, but when are we going to find the main plot?" :smallannoyed:



I've run into several players who I'd say legitimately "get" sandbox play, but the problem is that you really need at least half the group to be players of that type, or the non-sandbox follow-the-plot majority will view the sandboxers as detracting from "the real game" and derail the player-driven stuff to wait on the DM's next plot hook. And once again I speak from experience. :smallsigh :

The problem I see is that "Player-driven" vs. "DM-driven" are not totally congruent with "sandbox" vs. "plotted adventure." I bolded the above sections because I think they're important. To my mind, a plotted adventure is one the DM plans in advance and is dependent upon the players to move the plot forward. If the plot of the campaign is to save the world, but what the players want to do is rescue princesses from goblins, the plot really can't advance* since the players aren't interacting with it. However, in a sandbox game, there are a ton of plots happening, and it is up to the players to choose what to interact with. The important thing about a sandbox, however, is that everything they didn't choose is happening in the background, regardless if the players chose to interact with it or not.

*Well, I would. But then it becomes more of a sandbox style game.

Here's the first post from the sandbox game I'm running that has been going on for more than a year (it's play by post, but that doesn't matter):


With winter over and the bitter cold receding to the north the town of Junction comes alive once more. No longer choked with bobbing chunks of ice and slush, work continues to repair the great stone bridge spanning the Bel and promising to open up the west once more to the civilizing forces of Man. The streets of Junction are filled with explorers and tradesfolk, mercenaries and merchants, all drawn to the frontier town at the call of the Scarlet Prince and the promise of untold wealth.

Over dinner the previous night the party's factor, a lean, smallpox-marked man named Mr. Hand had spread out the wrinkled, faded map on the table and succinctly recounts what they know.

“Here,” he says, pointing to the road leading to the town of Rocky Mount, “a pride of manticores is said to lurk, devouring all who attempt to pass. Their lair is said to be in these mountains here, overlooking the forest below. I have spoken to a merchant who claimed they are denning halfway up an almost sheer cliff, with a difficult approach.”

“A man has made contact with me, wild-eyed and bushy-bearded, claiming to know the location of a lost gold mine that he is willing to sell for the sum of five hundred gold alcedes. Ordinarily I would discount such tales as the raving of a lunatic or the sugary words of a con man, but I have sources who confirm that there was at one point an attempt to mine a lucrative vein somewhere about here.” He points to a section of the map labeled “75.55”.

“Explorers tell tales of Pesh, a fabled city far to the west. However, in order to get there one would have to either pass through Rocky Peak or take a longer and more circuitous route south, and then west.”

“There are also tales that the land west of Junction and south of Rocky Peak are exceptionally fertile. They tell me the Prince has his eye on expanding this way, at some point, as his domain is somewhat lacking in rich soil.”

“The Prince is offering a reward of five thousand gold alcedes for the removal of the river trolls currently disrupting shipping traffic on the River Sarn, some one hundred miles south of here. Alive or dead, he wishes to see them removed.” Hand points to a section of the map labeled “71.51”. “They are believed to be laired here.”

“The Rufous Baron, ruler of Junction, has offered a reward of 500 gold alcedes for anyone able to clear the land opposite the bridge of all threats, so that he may garrison a squad of troops there.”

Mr. Hand takes a sip of wine and warns the adventurers that they surely will not be the only brave souls called to the frontier. “There is one other party that I am aware of currently in Junction, and more will certainly follow with the warmer weather. I have told you what I know, and leave the final decision to those more experienced in such matters.”

So, the theme of the campaign is that after a century of the forces of Chaos being ascendent the pendulum has shifted, and lands lost to the depredations of savage beastmen are just starting to be reclaimed. I basically sold in as the Wilderlands of High Fantasy meets Oregon Trail. They started out with six plot hooks -- not because there were only six things for them to do, but because I didn't want to overwhelm them -- and picked one. In the meanwhile, there are several other adventuring parties out there, acting independently of the PCs, and several large overarching plots that are marching forwards, regardless if the players even know about them. The two main plots that the PCs have encountered thus far are as follows:

1. There's brewing civil war between several of the Principalities that comprise the Kingdom of Man. They've heard whispers of this, and have interacted with some peripheral elements, but it's pretty much stayed on the backburner. They'll probably start noticing this more next game year, when mercenary forces start to become more rare and expensive.

2. There's a hobgoblin king to the south, attempting to unify the chaotic beastman tribes into a cohesive nation. The PCs have interacted with this plotline more, but it won't really start affecting them until the next game year as well.

Now, I'm fine with the PCs doing whatever they want within the game, but according to the DM-v-Player driven rubric my "sandbox" game would still be considered DM-driven. Right now, pretty much everything they're doing is as a result of stuff I have placed in their laps (largely, to be fair, as a result of random encounter rolls that they've decided to follow up on) and they've reacted to, as opposed to things they've come up with on their own. For instance, they're getting ready to clash with a band of bandits that has been raiding the edges of the nascent domain they've established. But they could have ignored the bandit threat, or attempted to establish diplomatic relations or done any combination of the above and I would have rolled with it.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-05, 07:04 PM
The important thing about a sandbox, however, is that everything they didn't choose is happening in the background, regardless if the players chose to interact with it or not.


Odd you pick something that has nothing to do with the ''sandbox'' as something it is all about. After all, a normal plot type game can have several things happening in both the foreground and background,
regardless if the players chose to interact with it or not.

A true sandbox is just a pile of random stuff the players randomly do to ''build'' an adventure in reverse. The players start at point A and then stop at point B, then look back and say ''that was adventure 1''. Of course most sandboxes are more like the players pick a plot and then it's a normal plot driven game like all the rest.

The player led game is just giving the players the illusion of ''player agency'' or whatever makes them feel good. I guess it comes from the theoretical jerk DM that would ''force'' players do do whatever they wanted and the poor players had ''no choice'' but to play the plot the DM ''forced '' them too.

Cluedrew
2016-11-05, 07:43 PM
Odd you pick something that has nothing to do with the ''sandbox'' as something it is all about.I think thirdkingdom was saying that it is more important to have those things happening in the background to keep the world changing. In an adventure focused on a "main plot" you usually get away with only updating things that directly relate to that. Maybe a few stumbling block sub-plots. But yes, usually you do have a lot more than that going on in the background.


The player led game is just giving the players the illusion of ''player agency'' or whatever makes them feel good. I guess it comes from the theoretical jerk DM that would ''force'' players do do whatever they wanted and the poor players had ''no choice'' but to play the plot the DM ''forced '' them too.On this point I will actually have to disagree. First off that "theoretical" DM is no less real than many of the problem players you complain about. The most prominent example in my mind is CC/Marty Stu, you may or may not have read the SUE files.

Secondly, player agency is not an illusion. Despite what you have claimed, this does not mean giving players unlimited power and the GM being a doormat who grants their every which. The GM is here to have fun too. What it does mean is giving meaningful choices to the players. From character creation on.

I have played player-led games that were epic. Was it all an illusion? Well lets just say if the GM had a pre-planned adventure that could handle "A mercenary, a naive mystic and a reality TV show host (with camera crew), walk in to a bar" in a setting the fourth player, who joined us after we left the bar, just created no less I am very impressed.

I'm not saying you can't run games the way you and your players like, I'm not saying you have to like other people's way of playing. But could you please stop implying that other ways of running games are invalid?

Thank-you.

I didn't mean to say all this when I started, but here I am.

PairO'Dice Lost
2016-11-05, 07:46 PM
A true sandbox is just a pile of random stuff the players randomly do to ''build'' an adventure in reverse. The players start at point A and then stop at point B, then look back and say ''that was adventure 1''. Of course most sandboxes are more like the players pick a plot and then it's a normal plot driven game like all the rest.

The player led game is just giving the players the illusion of ''player agency'' or whatever makes them feel good. I guess it comes from the theoretical jerk DM that would ''force'' players do do whatever they wanted and the poor players had ''no choice'' but to play the plot the DM ''forced '' them too.

"Player-driven" isn't just an illusion, and "GM-driven" doesn't mean "railroady jerk GM" at all. Regarding the former, thirdkingdom does have a point that there's a difference between sandboxes with bunches of pre-written mini-plots that players can follow, ignore, string together, derail, or whatever and sandboxes that are entirely randomly generated and improvised. Which one people mean when they just say "sandbox" differs from person to person, and being able to talk about different kinds of sandboxes is helpful.

Regarding the latter, GM-driven can mean something as simple as the group deciding that they're going to do an undead-hunting campaign and the GM and players both prepping appropriately. Yes, the players can do whatever they want once the game starts, but when the characters are built to hunt undead, the characters' backstories involve a hatred of undead, and the GM has created a setting with lots of undead to be slain, they're probably going to decide to go kill some undead, with no coercion on the GM's part or resentment on the players' part.

Segev
2016-11-05, 10:53 PM
Darth Ultron, a sandbox isn't "random stuff." That you keep trying to claim it despite having people correct you repeatedly indicates a rather rude disrespect for your fellow playgrounders.

A sandbox had a lot going on. Whether it's in the background or not depends on what the players choose to pay attention to. Players get involved with the goings-on that interest them, or which interfere with whatever the players decide to work on. This can look similar to a plot-driven game, but differs because there isn't a sequence of events the players MUST be at to advance "the plot." Instead, stuff happens and if the players are there, they can change the outcomes.

kyoryu
2016-11-05, 11:51 PM
Player agency seems to be by far most people's first priority, and freedom to achieve a goal however you like is meaningless if the goal has been dictated by the GM.

I could not disagree with this more.


"Player-driven" isn't just an illusion,...

Darth Ultron...

Why are you arguing with him???

Delicious Taffy
2016-11-06, 05:39 AM
Which of your two categories applies more to a campaign where the DM gives a clearly-defined plot and goals, but the players keep treating it as an annoying sidequest and repeatedly tell the DM to get on with the "real" plot?

thirdkingdom
2016-11-06, 07:36 AM
Odd you pick something that has nothing to do with the ''sandbox'' as something it is all about. After all, a normal plot type game can have several things happening in both the foreground and background,
regardless if the players chose to interact with it or not.

A true sandbox is just a pile of random stuff the players randomly do to ''build'' an adventure in reverse. The players start at point A and then stop at point B, then look back and say ''that was adventure 1''. Of course most sandboxes are more like the players pick a plot and then it's a normal plot driven game like all the rest.

The player led game is just giving the players the illusion of ''player agency'' or whatever makes them feel good. I guess it comes from the theoretical jerk DM that would ''force'' players do do whatever they wanted and the poor players had ''no choice'' but to play the plot the DM ''forced '' them too.

Um, no, it's not.

Primus Beno
2016-11-06, 11:14 AM
What if you looked at "Player Driven" differently? I like to use the Dungeon World example.

I sat my middle school students down to play Dungeon World. They created their characters, found bonds between all of them, made up backstories together so everyone was included and were ready to start. I had nothing prepared for the game beyond a few quick zombie templates. I asked the following questions, without giving them context, to these eager 12 year olds and got the following responses.


Now that the cell door's open, which one of you is getting sprung?

They quickly decided it was the thief who was in jail. When asked how long, they decided a month. Know they know that this is a prison break scenario, but they got to choose who was being broken out.


What's so important that the duke had you arrested?

They decided that the thief had blackmail knowledge about the Duke trying to overthrow the king and was trying to get it to her Paladin sister before she was captured and imprisoned. They now have a central nemesis as well as motivations.

Why aren't the guards arresting all of you right now?

They had been smuggled in by the thieves guild, who had an interest in getting rid of the Duke, since he'd been squeezing them very hard lately. The guild had bought off guardsman on duty who let the party into the prison. Now I know they have a powerful ally who may be expecting something in return for this favor.

What was the hardest part about breaking into prison?

The story got a bit funny as they told me the Paladin was actually allergic to the Druid in wolf form and kept sneezing, which might have attracted the wrong guards attention. This helped bind more character stories together.


Which other prisoner can't you leave behind and what will happen if you do?


The thief knew the blackmail info, but had credibility problems since most people in the town believed the Duke's story about her being an actual thief. They had to get an old sage out who could also corroborate what the thief was saying. Now I had a complication to make their escape more difficult and an NPC they had to protect.


 After what you did to him, will the jailer live?

They decided "yes", the jailer would live since the Paladin spared his life. He was hog-tied up in one of the cells with a rag in his mouth. Now I know I have a basically "good" party who want a "good themed" story.


Had the dead breached the walls of the city when you entered the dungeon?

This shocked and scared them. They had decided that no, the dead hadn't breached the walls yet, but were close and that fog was pouring into the city. They crafted a story about the plague turning folks into zombies from a bite and the hoard had been ignored by the Duke for too long. There was panic on the streets, which made getting into the prison easier.

BAM! I had an entire story with BBEG, feeble npc, motivators, a theme, mood and a structure to easily improvise off of. I just asked leading questions to the group and had them make up their own story. Now that they were vested, they really wanted to find out what was going on. Why had the Duke ignored the hoard? Where were they going to run? Should they run? How much time did the city have? Should they save it? They put the pressure on themselves to act without me prompting them too.

It was amazing, fun and enjoyable for me. They felt like they had created the story, I could put a framework together for them and throw challenges in their way and both player and DM felt they had agency.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-11-06, 11:33 AM
Another example from Dungeon World, which I think is straight out of the book.

"There's a wagon. It's flipped over on its side and you're all huddled behind it for cover as people fire arrows at you. The horses have been shot and are lying dead on the road. There's someone behind the wagon with you, they've been shot and are in shock. The wagon is also on fire."

Tell me:
Where are you?
Why are these people attacking you?
Who is the person who's been shot and why is it very important that they survive?

IShouldntBehere
2016-11-06, 11:41 AM
My ideal game is both GM & Player driven. GM sets the initial tone, premise and goal of the game. "A heroic game about a world undergoing a demon invasion" and sets the initial plot hooks. Players dive into those, make choices shake things up. GM looks at the result of those actions and uses them to craft a new set of plot hooks. Rinse and repeat.


You can kind of think of like this. The GM supplies the initial raw materials. The players forge some parts from those raw materials. The GM uses those parts to build a machine to mine up some new raw materials. The players forge those raw materials into parts again, and so on.

A good game is a feedback loop with the players actions & decisions informing the GM's plot hooks and game direction, which shapes player actions & decisions.

Solaris
2016-11-06, 05:22 PM
Who told you a sandbox is defined as "Things happen in the background"? They lied to you, Playgrounders. That's not indicative of a sandbox, that's indicative of a cohesive game with verisimilitude. It's tangential to a game's identity as a sandbox or non-sandbox.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-06, 09:50 PM
Darth Ultron, a sandbox isn't "random stuff." That you keep trying to claim it despite having people correct you repeatedly indicates a rather rude disrespect for your fellow playgrounders.

A sandbox had a lot going on. Whether it's in the background or not depends on what the players choose to pay attention to. Players get involved with the goings-on that interest them, or which interfere with whatever the players decide to work on. This can look similar to a plot-driven game, but differs because there isn't a sequence of events the players MUST be at to advance "the plot." Instead, stuff happens and if the players are there, they can change the outcomes.

The problem is your describing a normal plot game, not a sandbox. Or are you saying a plotted game and a sandbox are the same thing?

Like I said, the players can be all random for hours...but eventually the sandboxy players will pick a plot, because the only options are random stuff or have a plot and story. And most players will want to ''do something'' and that requires a plot and story.


Um, no, it's not.
Is there some new (maybe 5E?) definition of ''Sandbox''?

A normal plot game with a story is where a DM makes up the adventure details and encounters and everything else before the game. Then the players will ''run through'' that adventure. A plot has a very obvious end, often very simply ''you must do X'', so you will know when the adventure is over.

Such a game can also start with the DM dangling plot hooks in front of the players until they pick one....and then do everything in the above paragraph.

So a sandbox game is where.......something else happens?

Thrudd
2016-11-06, 10:09 PM
A sandbox is a persistent world that the players explore and interact with on their own initiative and generally in the manner of their choosing. The GM is responsible for creating all the content in the sandbox, as always. The manner in which the GM generates content (random or "rule of cool" improvisation or exhaustive preparation) is not relevant to whether or not it is a sandbox.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-06, 11:51 PM
A sandbox is a persistent world that the players explore and interact with on their own initiative and generally in the manner of their choosing. The GM is responsible for creating all the content in the sandbox, as always. The manner in which the GM generates content (random or "rule of cool" improvisation or exhaustive preparation) is not relevant to whether or not it is a sandbox.

Ok, but this definition is that a snadbox game is a normal plot type game?

And like I said the players take take hours to ''interact with the game world of their own initiative and in a way of their choosing''. Eventually most players will then ''want to start really playing the game'' and follow a plot. So, then your right back to the normal plot type game.

If there is no plot or story, then it's just all random....but everyone says that is not a sandbox, right?

2D8HP
2016-11-07, 12:19 AM
Player-led vs. GM-led?, are just not what I care about.
Try Aimless or Worthwhile instead. I will give a couple of examples.
1) PC's are invited somewhere and the only real object is for the PC's to "introduce" each other, and while sometimes witty banter results, but just as often it becomes back-story monologue's, feather ruffling, and even PvP, all of which (especially when they go on too long) are lame, and player-led.
2) PC's are captured/invited somewhere and then some big-wig forces them into gladiatoral combats and/or contests for the big-wigs amusement or as "tests", or even worst forced PvP. GM-led and lame.

The PC's in an empty room is no adventure at all, and nothing but a one way ticket, with no choices to make or actions of any consequences isn't much better.

Good set-ups?
1) Treasure Island.
Who doesn't want treasure? Have the PC's find a map. Have a rival team compete for the treasure. Maybe the treasure "in the wrong hands", would be catastrophic (think Raiders of the Lost Ark).
Now that's an adventure!

2) Seven Samurai.
The PC's are hired by villagers to save them from bandits.
Perhaps the bandits are tougher than the PC's thought (think the Three Amigo's), do the PC's go back on there word and save their own hides, or do they fight to the death with honor, even if it only means "only the farmers win".
Now that's a story with meaning!

Do the PC's actions and/or choices have meaning for the welfare of themselves and/or anyone else?

The worst ending of all is "it was just a dream".

thirdkingdom
2016-11-07, 07:46 AM
Ok, but this definition is that a snadbox game is a normal plot type game?

And like I said the players take take hours to ''interact with the game world of their own initiative and in a way of their choosing''. Eventually most players will then ''want to start really playing the game'' and follow a plot. So, then your right back to the normal plot type game.

If there is no plot or story, then it's just all random....but everyone says that is not a sandbox, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by "random". The game I am running uses ACKS, which is an OSR clone of the B/X ruleset. So it is definitely not some "new 5e definition", as you so snidely put it. About half of the encounters the players explored have been random, determined on the fly, and the other half have been set encounters (which, to be fair, I also largely generate randomly). However, there are certainly coherent plots woven through out the campaign. Some of these plots are the result of random rolls, others are because of the advancement of a deliberate timeline.

I think part of difficulty is the nomenclature. Let's assume for a minute there are three broad types of adventures:

1. Scripted Adventure (often referred to as "Adventure Paths"). These are the most tightly run games, with the players going from Location A to Location B to Location C. There's a very specific order in which you tackle things. There's an overarching theme of the adventure. Like, prevent the mad cultists from summoning the dead god, or whatever. If the players decide "I'd rather start up a merchant caravan and go to Point Z, which isn't a part of the written adventure, the game is pretty much over."

2. Semi-sandbox. I think that the 5e adventure Princes of the Apocalypse is a pretty good example of this. Overarching theme and plot (princes of elemental evil, prevent them from taking over the world, etc.) but you can tackle the different pieces in any order that you want.

3. Sandbox. There are a bunch of different things going on that the players can chose to interact with. It doesn't mean "plotless" or random. There might be a half-dozen dungeons scattered throughout the starting area that have no connection to one another. I usually run sandboxes with a couple of NPC parties doing stuff in the background, so it's quite possible for the PCs to find that someone has beaten them to a certain dungeon or plot hook. Also, there are a number of different plots that occur, regardless if the players interact with them or not. I keep a pretty detailed time tracker to figure out when stuff is going to occur.

Like, one of the dungeons could contain an orc chieftain who's raising an army to invade the lands of Man. If the PCs decide they'd rather invade the Tower of the Mad Necromancer, it's quite possible they come back to find that their hometown is under siege by an orcish horde. They've then got the ability to chose what to do next. Stay and help fight the orcs? Go on an infiltration mission to strike at the orcish homeland? Decide that the King's armies have got this, and they don't need to get involved?

I'm just not sure where you're coming from with your insistence that a sandbox has to be "random", or even what you mean by that.

OldTrees1
2016-11-07, 08:08 AM
I'm just not sure where you're coming from with your insistence that a sandbox has to be "random", or even what you mean by that.

Based upon previous arguments his meaning seems to be a mixture of:
1) His disdain for players making him view them as meatbags with dice for brains and thus they act randomly unless controlled.
2) His distrust of the ability to derive unprepared material from a consistent world and thus presumes it is all made up on the spot.

Although there is not much to be gained in arguments with him you will still see people fall to the temptation once in awhile.

Frozen_Feet
2016-11-07, 08:27 AM
All games with a GM should be GM-led. This goes way beyond and is not the same as "GM-driven".

A game being GM-led means the GM is in charge of the playgroup, oversees rules of the game and controls player participation. A game being GM-driven means it's the GM who acts within the game world, presents ideas, motivations and events for the characters, while the players react. A game-being player-driven means it is players who act within the game world, present ideas, motivations and events for the characters, while the GM reacts.

A player-led game would be one where rules, player participation etc. is managed by group consensus / voting. I see this sometimes with freeform games and my opinion of player-led games is not stellar.

Quertus
2016-11-07, 08:28 AM
So, a sandbox isn't just a collection of random elements... but wouldn't a collection of random plot elements qualify as a sandbox?

EDIT:


All games with a GM should be GM-led. This goes way beyond and is not the same as "GM-driven".

A game being GM-led means the GM is in charge of the playgroup, oversees rules of the game and controls player participation. A game being GM-driven means it's the GM who acts within the game world, presents ideas, motivations and events for the characters, while the players react. A game-being player-driven means it is players who act within the game world, present ideas, motivations and events for the characters, while the GM reacts.

A player-led game would be one where rules, player participation etc. is managed by group consensus / voting. I see this sometimes with freeform games and my opinion of player-led games is not stellar.

I've been in plenty of games where the GM was not the one who knew the rules best, and so the rules were managed by someone else, by the group, or, once, by the duplex cookies of fate. And those worked out just fine.

I'm not sure what you mean by someone being in charge of player participation, however. I'm picturing someone with a gag, to stifle spotlight hogs, and torture devices, to force participation out of wall flowers. What did you really mean?

Cluedrew
2016-11-07, 08:47 AM
What if you looked at "Player Driven" differently? I like to use the Dungeon World example.I think the Powered by the Apocalypse system is a great example, they seem to be tuned for that type of game.


All games with a GM should be GM-led. This goes way beyond and is not the same as "GM-driven".Perhaps that would have been a better term for it, but I think that is what GM-led here.

As for Sandboxes, although the lack of a single main plot is usually highlighted as a main feature. That should not be confused with the lack of plot overall. Or put a different way, the main plot is that of the characters themselves instead of the threat they face. I suppose if you examine the plot only in terms of threats the GM throws at the party, it could appear random but only because you are overlooking the thread that takes you from one to the other.

thirdkingdom
2016-11-07, 09:24 AM
So, a sandbox isn't just a collection of random elements... but wouldn't a collection of random plot elements qualify as a sandbox?

EDIT:



I've been in plenty of games where the GM was not the one who knew the rules best, and so the rules were managed by someone else, by the group, or, once, by the duplex cookies of fate. And those worked out just fine.

I'm not sure what you mean by someone being in charge of player participation, however. I'm picturing someone with a gag, to stifle spotlight hogs, and torture devices, to force participation out of wall flowers. What did you really mean?

Aight, what exactly to you mean by "random"? It's a word I see some guys throwing around but I'm not really sure what you mean by it.

Quertus
2016-11-07, 09:36 AM
Aight, what exactly to you mean by "random"? It's a word I see some guys throwing around but I'm not really sure what you mean by it.

Point. I'm just copying it from others, so one would have to ask them what they meant. I suppose I took it it mean "disconnected" or "independent". Lacking a unifying theme.

But it could just as well mean "rolled up on random tables"... And now I've distracted myself with imagining if this entire world were merely the product of God rolling on some random tables...

2D8HP
2016-11-07, 10:29 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by someone being in charge of player participation, however. I'm picturing someone with a gag, to stifle spotlight hogs, and torture devices, to force participation out of wall flowers. What did you really mean?

Pizza?

Check.

Sodas?

Check.

Chips?

Check.

Paper?

Check.

Pencils?

Check.

Miniatures?

Check.

Gags?


Gags?

Guys, you should know by now that there's no game without gags and torture devices!

:amused:

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-07, 11:12 AM
Ok, but this definition is that a snadbox game is a normal plot type game?


No, it's not.

Or rather "normal plot game" vs... whatever the other option would be, is a pretty meaningless distinction.

A sandbox game can still have a plot, but more of that plot occurs because of the players/characters choices along the way, rather than being prewritten by the GM as a story to be presented.

kyoryu
2016-11-07, 11:37 AM
Guys, really, don't engage with Darth Ultron on the whole railroad/sandbox thing. He's got himself convinced that either your game is a railroad and is good, or it's literally a string of random encounters.

There's zero point in derailing this thread on that subject.

Lacuna Caster
2016-11-07, 11:38 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by someone being in charge of player participation, however. I'm picturing someone with a gag, to stifle spotlight hogs, and torture devices, to force participation out of wall flowers. What did you really mean?
I find that just going around the table clockwise and prompting for input works fine for most wallflowers and some spotlight hogs. If the latter are a real and persistent problem, the GM can eject them from play.


A sandbox game can still have a plot, but more of that plot occurs because of the players/characters choices along the way, rather than being prewritten by the GM as a story to be presented.
I think 'story' is a straightforward term for what you're describing. Without getting hung over semantics, I end to reserve 'plot' to describe the pre-scripted version.

Segev
2016-11-07, 11:49 AM
The problem is your describing a normal plot game, not a sandbox. Or are you saying a plotted game and a sandbox are the same thing?

So your normal games do not have the structure that most "plotted out" adventures do, and are instead sandboxes. That explains SOME things, but seems at odds with others you've claimed about how you run your games. Particularly your claims about how everything has to be railroaded for it not to be, in your words, "random."


A "plotted-out adventure" is one where the PCs' roles are defined, and the PCs take on the prescribed role of protagonists. They play a lot like most Final Fantasy games (especially 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13), where the plot of the game is a scripted story that the PCs will be inserted into to play out. The more rigid the railroad, the less their decisions actually matter and the more their participation and "uniqueness" is in how they win combats and what quips and lines they use in RPing with each other, as they will progress the plot by doing what is scripted for them to do.

Less rigid rails will allow for some branching decision-points, maybe allow some NPCs to be friendlier or more hostile and have that impact how easy or hard later encounters are. Particularly flexible ones - and if it's not this flexible, it probably is better run as a cRPG - will tend to allow the PCs to "break script" and require some rewriting of the plot to account for their choices.

As you move to still more flexibility, you've crossed a threshold into more "sandbox" games, where the PCs are free to reject entire swaths of the plot, to make entirely different decisions about how to pursue the goals or even what their real goals are.

At a certain point, a threshold is crossed as we get more sandboxy, and the "empty slots" the script has open for the PCs are gone entirely. The "script," such as it is, is more an outline of what will happen if there are no PCs involved.

There is an enormous difference, here. This is the true paradigm shift between scripted plots (which are varying rigidity of "railroad") and sandboxes: The sandbox doesn't have a pre-defined role for the PCs, at all. The sandbox does have a solid idea of how things will progress with no PC intervention. And a well-written/designed one will have a lot of points where hooks poke out for PCs to latch on to and interfere. But the PCs are a disruptive influence on "the script" in a sandbox. This is intentional.

In a railroad-like game, where the PCs have roles they're meant to slot into, the notion of a "disruptive" player being the guy who bucks the expectations of the narrative and wants to have a goal out of line with what the plot calls for is a problem. In a sandbox game, that's not a problem because it's rather expected. PCs need goals of their own to motivate them in a sandbox game (though "House Mnemon needs mercenaries and is hiring" can be all the motive needed to initially get involved).

Sandboxes aren't "random," nor need PCs do "random things" to make a sandbox. PCs need to be able to do anything (within their mechanical capability) they want and have the world react appropriately.


Where most people argue with you, Darth Ultron, is your characterization of all "real" games as railroads where the PCs need to be led around by the nose. A true railroad has the PCs' path plotted out for them. A true sandbox has things that are going on which the PCs can try to ride along or disrupt.


Please note that a "disruptive player" here is not the "hur hur I'm going to cause problems at the table" player. I don't mean that kind of disruption. I mean disruptive to the plot, such as the plot is.

In a railroad, this is a problem because the GM now has to rewrite everything since his storyline required that the PCs be motivated to perform specific actions and make specific choices, and bucking that or not caring about such-and-such goal has wrecked his artfully-constructed story with the PCs as main characters.

In a sandbox, this isn't a problem because it's expected. The GM has a good idea of how things would have gone if the PCs hadn't done anything to change the status quo, but he doesn't have specific "plot events" that must happen with the PCs behaving in particular ways to get to them or during them. Instead, he knows how things would go...and can figure out how everything reacts and changes to the PCs' actions.

His political intrigue at court might have a dozen factions and rivalries, and he knows that, barring outside interference, the Vizier's faction will ascend the throne when their abuse of the trust placed in them as a "neutral" party lets them arrange for the Merchants' Guild to assassinate the king and get the City Guard to declare martial law with the Vizier as the one trusted to administer it. When the PCs get involved, they may decide they like the king and protect him. Maybe they out the Merchants' Guild's plan, and gain the trust of the Guard for themselves. Or maybe they defuse the situation entirely, and learn that the Vizier was instigating it. Or maybe they broker a deal between the Merchants' Guild and the City Guard and get the City Guard on board with the assassination after all.

Or maybe they decide they'd rather look for monsters to hunt out in the wilderness. The GM may have to acknowledge that he hadn't prepared for that, and run some random wilderness encounters for that session and use those to inspire something going on out there. Meanwhile, while they're doing that, they return to find the Vizier running a martial-law-occupied city. IF they take interest, great, if not, well, the GM has learned their interests and populated the surroundings.

Heck, if his political intrigue had any outside pressures to consider, he may have incorporated those. The merchants wanted the king gone because he was taxing them but appeasing the orc bandits that prey on them, perhaps. So those orc bandits are out there for the PCs to run into when they go exploring for trouble, and they get involved in hunting them down. Or deciding to conquer THEM and unite them under their banner. Or escort merchants and make some money while they learn of the merchants' displeasure and plot to kill the king.


The big thing is that this sandbox isn't "random," as you characterize the term. Even the PCs' choices aren't "random" so much as "self-motivated" by what they're interested in.


Like I said, the players can be all random for hours...but eventually the sandboxy players will pick a plot, because the only options are random stuff or have a plot and story. And most players will want to ''do something'' and that requires a plot and story. Again, that's not ceasing to be a sandbox. That's playing with the toys that are in the sandbox. And if you're allowing them to influence the plot (rather than just latch onto it and ride its rails to your pre-defined conclusion), you're still in a sand box. They might grab on to the plot and side with exactly who you expected...or they might take a shine to the "bad guys." Or they might think of solutions involving two other plot threads that you hadn't intended to be intermingled, and use one to solve the others.




A normal plot game with a story is where a DM makes up the adventure details and encounters and everything else before the game. Then the players will ''run through'' that adventure. A plot has a very obvious end, often very simply ''you must do X'', so you will know when the adventure is over.See, that's the railroad version. You're leaving out the notion that a "plot," just like real life, doesn't have to end. Sure, achievements occur. Goals are met or forever lost. But new goals and new threats to the stability of goals achieved arise.

Just because the King was saved from the merchants' assassination doesn't mean the Vizier gives up on his plans to take the throne. Just because the PCs behead the Vizier doesn't mean his supporters aren't still bitter. Nor that their alliance of City Guards and Merchants doesn't have its own political tensions they must continue to balance.

Just because they went out to fight orcs rather than get involved in court politics doesn't mean that beating up all the orcs resolves all the problems. Nor that beating up all the orcs is the only solution. Just because they've united the orcs under their banner in a massive warband to lead against the city doesn't mean the city automatically falls. There's still that to play out.

A STORY has a beginning, a middle, and an end. But that doesn't mean that the PCs must slot into the GM's pre-selected roles and do his pre-selected events to make them happen. The story can evolve from PCs setting goals and making plans to achieve them, using the items in the sandbox - the various ongoing "plots" - as tools to get there.

In this version, the DM doesn't make up what the PCs have to do. He just comes up with the challenge...and lets the PCs figure out how to overcome it, by whatever means they can discover amongst the tools they have (or by whatever means they can create from the tools they have and the rest of the sandbox).


Such a game can also start with the DM dangling plot hooks in front of the players until they pick one....and then do everything in the above paragraph.

So a sandbox game is where.......something else happens?A sandbox game is one where the DM doesn't say, "In this plot, the PCs do this, this, then this, and make these choices, and go to this event, and then they win, unless they fail and lose along the way." A sandbox game is one where the DM says, "This is what's going on. If the PCs get involved, it will alter according to their interaction with it. If they don't like the situation, they can fight it or change it by whatever means they have at their disposal, and I know enough about it to resist or cooperate."

The current "plot arc" of a Rifts game I'm in picked up after the PCs had established themselves as the lieutenants of a new Warlord of the Pecos (one of the PCs' number, Max, a dogboy sheriff). Warlord Max is building up his little economic empire, when he learns that another, highly unpopular warlord has been...replaced...by a demon-worshipping cult that is actively killing and kidnapping people rather than engaging in "proper" Pecos banditry.

Now, the GM had a pretty good idea that Max would oppose this. But the plans we came up with to fight it were not provided by the GM, and the GM had the bad guys reacting to us as much as we were reacting to them.

Additionally, if the party had decided that allying with the demon cult was what they wanted to do, the GM would have been surprised, but amply able to roll with that. And the threats would have likely been involved in building trust/gaining power within the demon-worshipping organization so we weren't mere cannon fodder, and in fighting against the REST of the Pecos as other warlords started to notice the problem and found the union of Max and Don Marco under a demon-worshipping banner to be...objectionable. Plus, eventually, we'd have gotten the attention of the elephant in the room, the Coalition States (who embody the notion of 'enough firepower' in this region).

That's a sandbox. It isn't random, and the GM does have things driving the plot and forcing PC reactions. But how the PCs react and what the PCs take action to do is up to us. We don't have pre-defined roles in a plot that's already written, and "scripted events" are, at best, rough guesses of the kind of thing that might occur if things go without PC disruption (or predictions based on likely PC choices, but which need not happen necessarily).

Note that the distinction with a "railroad" is that PCs aren't given a script they have to feel out and follow. The distinction is NOT a lack of "plot." It's just that the plot, if PCs hadn't acted, would have gone one way, but as the PCs got involved it went another, and it was shaped by PC choices, not by PCs following a pre-written script.

Jay R
2016-11-07, 11:58 AM
It's worth pointing out that a player-led game is a game for which the DM creates hundreds of potential encounters, most of which never happen.

The original D&D dungeons and wilderness games were pretty much this - PCs go exploring and determine which small part of the DM's work they will ever see.

That's why I don't build sandboxes any more. I don't have that much designing time before the campaign can start these days.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-07, 12:01 PM
I think 'story' is a straightforward term for what you're describing. Without getting hung over semantics, I end to reserve 'plot' to describe the pre-scripted version.


That's fair, and maybe more accurate.




It's worth pointing out that a player-led game is a game for which the DM creates hundreds of potential encounters, most of which never happen.

The original D&D dungeons and wilderness games were pretty much this - PCs go exploring and determine which small part of the DM's work they will ever see.

That's why I don't build sandboxes any more. I don't have that much designing time before the campaign can start these days.


I think if you're going to sandbox, as a GM, you have to be willing to make up a lot of details as you go.

Thing is, that requires a stronger foundation of details in how the world/setting works, what is and is not possible, etc, beforehand, and a framework around which to improvise the details, in order to avoid contradicting yourself, painting yourself into a corner, setting up unforeseen implications, and so on.

This is part of why I get so worked up about solid worldbuilding, and so aggravating by notions that we should just wing it or that it doesn't matter.

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-07, 12:51 PM
Guys, you should know by now that there's no game without gags and torture devices!

:amused:





If he can't run the game without the gag, is it a Running Gag?

Cluedrew
2016-11-07, 02:47 PM
[Darth Ultron has] got himself convinced that either your game is a railroad and is good, or it's literally a string of random encounters.
Particularly your [again, Darth Ultron] claims about how everything has to be railroaded for it not to be, in your words, "random."I feel I should point what Darth Ultron seems to mean when he says railroading. This is what I figured out in a thread on railroading some months ago. When Darth Ultron says railroading he seems to say almost any act a GM preforms to guide the game. This includes creating plot hooks, points of interest that the PCs can examine and so on. His statements make more sense in this light... although it makes the term almost useless in my option. But we had that conversation already.

To Jay R: Player-led probably works better in games where do don't have to prepare encounters ahead of time.

Frozen_Feet
2016-11-07, 04:09 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by someone being in charge of player participation, however. I'm picturing someone with a gag, to stifle spotlight hogs, and torture devices, to force participation out of wall flowers. What did you really mean?

I mean the GM sets limits on the minimum or maximum amount of participants, removes disruptive or rule-breaking players from the table, keeps track of time and makes sure each participant gets their turn, announces when the game begins and ends etc.

You know, the sorts of things a game master typically does in all sorts of games, not just RPGs. In Finnish, the established term for this role is "pelinjohtaja", literally game leader.

kyoryu
2016-11-07, 05:11 PM
I feel I should point what Darth Ultron seems to mean when he says railroading. This is what I figured out in a thread on railroading some months ago. When Darth Ultron says railroading he seems to say almost any act a GM preforms to guide the game. This includes creating plot hooks, points of interest that the PCs can examine and so on. His statements make more sense in this light... although it makes the term almost useless in my option. But we had that conversation already.

Yes. The point is to say that doing anything is railroading, therefore railroading is good, and therefore people not liking railroading are just dumb.

It's a really stupid attempt at a logic trick.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-07, 05:19 PM
Yes. The point is to say that doing anything is railroading, therefore railroading is good, and therefore people not liking railroading are just dumb.

It's a really stupid attempt at a logic trick.


So it's not just me who picked up a whiff of that?

kyoryu
2016-11-07, 05:32 PM
So it's not just me who picked up a whiff of that?

I like ice cream. Some people say that they don't like ice cream, and like cake. They're clearly wrong! And if you think about it, ice cream can have chocolate. And so can this so-called cake, which means that obviously what they're calling cake is really ice cream. So if you take chocolate, and strawberries, and other things out, then what's left is just just flavorless bread. So, really, you either like ice cream, which can have chocolate and strawberries, or you're saying you like flavorless bread for dessert. Because if the flavorless bread had chocolate or strawberries in it, it would be ice cream.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-07, 06:43 PM
I'm just not sure where you're coming from with your insistence that a sandbox has to be "random", or even what you mean by that.

Your description does not make a Sandbox and different then a normal ''Scripted Adventure''. The player choice is mentioned...but, ok, the players pick ''adventure A'' and then it's a ''Scripted Adventure''.

You seem to be saying that a non-sandbox game can't have events in the background? Why?

How does a Sandbox give this ''amazing freedom'', but the ''Scripted Adventure'' does not?




As for Sandboxes, although the lack of a single main plot is usually highlighted as a main feature. That should not be confused with the lack of plot overall. Or put a different way, the main plot is that of the characters themselves instead of the threat they face.

So a Sandbox does not have a ''single main plot''? So a Sandbox has ''lots of little plots''....but as you can really only do one plot at a time, one must be picked as the ''single main plot'' so that is right back to saying a ''sandbox is a scripted adventure''.


Aight, what exactly to you mean by "random"? It's a word I see some guys throwing around but I'm not really sure what you mean by it.

I mean random as in ''something just thrown out of the blue for no reason other then something to do''. If you have any type of even ''tiny plot'', then it's a scripted adventure, not a sandbox.


A sandbox game can still have a plot, but more of that plot occurs because of the players/characters choices along the way, rather than being prewritten by the GM as a story to be presented.

I wonder what kind of pre written adventure your talking about? Any half way good adventure is full of ''what ifs'', that is how an RPG adventure is written. Every action or encounter needs a ''if the PC's do this or that'' or ''if this or that'' happens. And even with a pre written adventure, the DM will still improvise on the fly, as that is a big reason why the DM is even there.

[QUOTE=Segev;21375229]
Where most people argue with you, Darth Ultron, is your characterization of all "real" games as railroads where the PCs need to be led around by the nose. A true railroad has the PCs' path plotted out for them. A true sandbox has things that are going on which the PCs can try to ride along or disrupt.

Good post. I think I get it now.

1.Normal railroaded game: Where the players willing follow the plot to have fun with the DM.

2.Sandbox: Where the players don't follow anything of the DMs and willing disrupt the game.

That makes sense to me.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-07, 06:46 PM
I wonder what kind of pre written adventure your talking about? Any half way good adventure is full of ''what ifs'', that is how an RPG adventure is written.


Evidently... based on your posts... the kind you run.





1.Normal railroaded game: Where the players willing follow the plot to have fun with the DM.

2.Sandbox: Where the players don't follow anything of the DMs and willing disrupt the game.

That makes sense to me.

thirdkingdom
2016-11-07, 06:52 PM
*headdesk*

2D8HP
2016-11-07, 08:24 PM
Because if the flavorless bread had chocolate....Mmmm chocolate.....
OK now I've completely forgot my thoughts.

*headdesk*I still feel that neither all "Sandbox" or all "Railroad", correlate with lame or awesome. A sandbox can be aimless, and a railroad pointless.


The worst ending of all is "it was just a dream".

Cluedrew
2016-11-07, 09:43 PM
I still feel that neither all "Sandbox" or all "Railroad", correlate with lame or awesome. A sandbox can be aimless, and a railroad pointless.Well I would use the term linear instead of railroad, but in my mind railroading is essentially a linear adventure without player buy in.

Actually this thread has just given me an idea about how to frame those two types of games. A linear adventure is more plot-driven while a sandbox is more setting-driven. Now obviously they both have some of both (and character, the third building block in my model of stories), but the focus is shifted. Does that make sense to everyone (anyone?) else?

Now I'm wondering what you would call a game that is character-driven. It would probably correlate with a player-driven game though.

2D8HP
2016-11-08, 02:11 AM
Well I would use the term linear
Now I'm wondering what you would call a game that is character-driven. It would probably correlate with a player-driven game though.I really think you have an insight there.
I imagine that it's possible to have a character-driven game that at least at the start is not quite player-driven, and instead be system-driven by having random rolls for say the 5e D&D Flaws, Ideals etc., or the Pendragon Traits and Passions, and you role-play the resulting PC.
Early D&D had a touch of that as you rolled your "stats", and since choosing your class based on them was heavily encouraged and certain classes required certain alignments, voila! A randomly generated piece of a personality.
A character-driven game could also be GM-driven if the GM assigns the characters, but I imagine that many players would be more willing to accept random dice rolls than GM dictates determining who their PC is.

Segev
2016-11-08, 08:56 AM
Where most people argue with you, Darth Ultron, is your characterization of all "real" games as railroads where the PCs need to be led around by the nose. A true railroad has the PCs' path plotted out for them. A true sandbox has things that are going on which the PCs can try to ride along or disrupt.

Good post. I think I get it now.

1.Normal railroaded game: Where the players willing follow the plot to have fun with the DM.

2.Sandbox: Where the players don't follow anything of the DMs and willing disrupt the game.

That makes sense to me.Given that you had to deliberately ignore the extremely obvious spoiler block on what I meant by "disruptive" to come to this conclusion, I can only conclude that you are arguing in bad faith, and know you're doing so and know that you're deliberately using a bad, incorrect, uncommon, and ultimately useless definition of "normal railroad game."

That said, I am a sucker, so I'll bite the bait one more time.

No.

1. Railroad game: Where the plot has specific roles the PCs are to fill, and requires the PCs to play particular ways and take particular paths for the plot to advance, lest it break down and be "disrupted" in a way that makes the DM unable to progress.

2. Sandbox game: Where the "plot" is a combination of stuff that's happening if the PCs don't intervene, and the PCs' interventions causing those events to alter.




The difference is that a sandbox doesn't have a pre-scripted part for the PCs to play. When the PCs "choose a plot" (as you keep trying to put it), they aren't jumping into gaping holes in the narrative and filling them, riding along the DM's pre-scripted path. Instead, they're seeing something that the DM has going on, and getting involved. Their involvement changes how it goes, according to how they involve themselves. The DM has not created a role for them to fill, nor a series of events which are the pre-scripted result of PC actions. Instead, he has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions, altering the outcomes of what would have happened if the PCs weren't there.

Lorsa
2016-11-08, 12:11 PM
My relentless procrastinative thinking about RPGs, and D&D in particular, has led me to a certain way of categorising games and I'm interested in seeing if people agree with this model and if so which type of game they prefer.

There are GM-led games and player-led games. In the GM-led game, the GM presents a scenario with a goal, and the players engage with that scenario and try to achieve that goal. In a player-led game the GM provides only an environment, a world, and the players explore it at their leisure and choose a goal themselves; the GM is there to facilitate this process and make it as much fun as possible.

I think this is slightly different form the distinction between "linear" and "sandbox" games. The way I see it, if the GM presents a small scenario - a village and its surroundings, even a single dungeon - with a definite goal but leaves the players to figure out how to go about achieving the goal, that's essentially a miniature sandbox. But it's still a GM-led adventure because the GM chose the objective, not the players.

Now an admission: it seems that the majority of players want player-led adventures. Player agency seems to be by far most people's first priority, and freedom to achieve a goal however you like is meaningless if the goal has been dictated by the GM. I feel I'm very much in a minority in that, both as a player and as a GM, I favour GM-led adventures. I find player-led adventures often fun but not ultimately satisfying. They sprawl out in too many directions, they go on indefinitely and tend to involve at least as much deciding what to do as doing. Most of all they become vague, incoherent. There's a story but it's baggy and stretched out, like a novel that hasn't been edited. There's a lack of focus. To me, total player agency is not worth this.

By contrast, in a good GM-led adventure (whether it's a published module or something the GM designed themselves) I feel like I've taken part in something tangible, something that's a work in the sense that a novel or film is a work. It seems paradoxical, considering that the player-led game is intended to give you the chance to properly explore and roleplay your character, but as a player I find myself much more able to do this if my character is dropped into the GM's scenario than if he's left to wander around and decide for himself what to do.

Of course it is entirely subjective, and I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind about how RPGs "should" be played. What I am interested in is getting an idea of how many people feel the same way as me. Do you prefer GM-led adventures? Do you prefer player-led adventures? Do you think it's a false dichotomy and I'm talking ****e?

I think it's an interesting way to try and analyze games. Like most things though it's more of a scale and not a simple binary choice. Most good games I've been in start off being more GM-led at the start and then move on to being more player-led as the game progress. This is according to your definition that is.

As we are into definitions and discussion railroads vs. sandbox with Darth Ultron yet again (who seem to be speaking a completely different language to the rest of us), the way I see things is this:

Railroad = The GM has written a book and wants players to experience it
Sandbox = The GM has created a world and wants the players to experience it

GM-led = The world has clear adventure hooks, problems or situations the players can choose engage with
Player-led = The world offers no such adventure hooks, problems or situations, the players create their own

With these four axes, the games I often run would be described as GM-led sandbox games. The worst type of game I could think of would be the player-led railroad game. I have actually been in one that could be described as such, and it was awful.

2D8HP
2016-11-08, 02:03 PM
The worst type of game I could think of would be the player-led railroad game. I have actually been in one that could be described as such, and it was awful."Player-led railroad"?

How does such an anti-awesome monstrosity even exist?

Please warn us!

Frozen_Feet
2016-11-09, 09:58 AM
Oh, it happens in play-by-post freeforms all the time.

Usually it goes like this: some clique of players come up with a "real cool" story arc without really considering how long it will take to implement. Then slowly but surely the game gets choked up by the players struggling to hit all the predetermined highs and lows, with characters, events and (at worst) players that don't fit the Grand Vision being sidelined.

It's also possible for a player to railroad themselves by making a highly reactionary character, failing to exercise creative agency or insisting that a character's rank/station/canonical superpower requires that character's presence in [some scenario]. Example: insisting a police officer must be present at every crimescene of the game.

Settings with long-range ESP like Ki detection or Locate person or whatever are especially prone to this because people have unfortunate habit to use them as "plot sense" and do not let little things like time and space prevent them from insisting their character should be part of or at least aware of every scene.

Jay R
2016-11-09, 10:58 AM
Railroad = The GM has written a book and wants players to experience it
Sandbox = The GM has created a world and wants the players to experience it

These are overly simple definitions.

A railroad is a sequence of events, each of which must be met in order, and solved with the single pre-set solution. If you never think to touch the purple hilt of your sword to the chartreuse spot on the door, you will never pass through the door, never find the Mace of Guffin needed to travel to where the BBEG is, and thus, you will never go further in the one and only adventure.

The railroad track goes through that door, and the purple hilt is your ticket to the depot with the Mace of Guffin..

I've seen many adventures in which there's a moderately well-structured story the GM has written, but any clever solution might work. This does not feel like a railroad to me.

2D8HP
2016-11-09, 11:20 AM
Mace of Guffin
"Mace of Guffin"?

I HAVE A QUEST!

(But first I must consult with Hitchcock the Sage)

:biggrin:

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-09, 12:12 PM
This thread definitely gets into one of the most abstract and argued part of gaming, not just Tabletop games.

Basically, the concept of linear verse non-linear.

What is often forgotten is that Linear and Non-linear aren't either or, they are a spectrum, based on how tightly the sequence of evens will occur. A certain level of linearity is needed in order to make a coherent story, otherwise you just get a game of Minecraft. However, there cannot be too much linearity, or else the players feel like they aren't even playing.

There is a word that I like to use a lot when discussing literature and gaming:

Agency.

This is a VERY important word and concept for writers, game designers, and GMs alike. How much control over their lives do the characters/PCs have?

A character will not have entire control, because things will happen beyond their power, the question is, how much does their decision affect the consequences, and how much control did they have over making that decision to begin with?

It gets complicated, but a character who suddenly is asked by a deity "Pick one land to live and one to destroy", that has no agency for the character because they had no control over what lead to them having to make that decision. If instead the player had learned of an evil plot to destroy both lands and got to the macguffin in time, but only had enough capability to save one of the lands, then they have much more agency.

A GM and/or game designer needs to provide situations where decisions matter, and the sequences that happen afterwards are determined by their decisions and actions, but also needs to provide enough structure so that the player can have things to react to, confront, seek out, or otherwise get entangled with. Conflict drives a story.

Long story short, a GM/DM has to figure out how much agency a player has, trying to make sure they have enough to make them feel like they have full control of the character, but not so much that they are not motivated to engage in the story.

And each GM has to figure out how much they need to give their players and how much structure is needed and what they can do to match their particular style.

All about agency.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-09, 01:51 PM
This thread definitely gets into one of the most abstract and argued part of gaming, not just Tabletop games.

Basically, the concept of linear verse non-linear.

What is often forgotten is that Linear and Non-linear aren't either or, they are a spectrum, based on how tightly the sequence of evens will occur. A certain level of linearity is needed in order to make a coherent story, otherwise you just get a game of Minecraft. However, there cannot be too much linearity, or else the players feel like they aren't even playing.

There is a word that I like to use a lot when discussing literature and gaming:

Agency.

This is a VERY important word and concept for writers, game designers, and GMs alike. How much control over their lives do the characters/PCs have?

A character will not have entire control, because things will happen beyond their power, the question is, how much does their decision affect the consequences, and how much control did they have over making that decision to begin with?

It gets complicated, but a character who suddenly is asked by a deity "Pick one land to live and one to destroy", that has no agency for the character because they had no control over what lead to them having to make that decision. If instead the player had learned of an evil plot to destroy both lands and got to the macguffin in time, but only had enough capability to save one of the lands, then they have much more agency.

A GM and/or game designer needs to provide situations where decisions matter, and the sequences that happen afterwards are determined by their decisions and actions, but also needs to provide enough structure so that the player can have things to react to, confront, seek out, or otherwise get entangled with. Conflict drives a story.

Long story short, a GM/DM has to figure out how much agency a player has, trying to make sure they have enough to make them feel like they have full control of the character, but not so much that they are not motivated to engage in the story.

And each GM has to figure out how much they need to give their players and how much structure is needed and what they can do to match their particular style.

All about agency.


Character agency is critical in fiction. Lack of character agency (or potential agency if the character is one who refuses to act) is a sign that I'm not going to care much for a story.

In an RPG, there's also the need for player agency, and the two are intrinsically interwoven.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-09, 05:50 PM
The difference is that a sandbox doesn't have a pre-scripted part for the PCs to play. When the PCs "choose a plot" (as you keep trying to put it), they aren't jumping into gaping holes in the narrative and filling them, riding along the DM's pre-scripted path. Instead, they're seeing something that the DM has going on, and getting involved. Their involvement changes how it goes, according to how they involve themselves. The DM has not created a role for them to fill, nor a series of events which are the pre-scripted result of PC actions. Instead, he has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions, altering the outcomes of what would have happened if the PCs weren't there.

But you seem to be stuck at the start of an adventure. So the PC's pick a plot..ok, fine they do. But then a plot is a plot. It has a path and story and pre scripted events and a time table. If it does not have them things, then it's not a plot...it's just random stuff happening randomly. The plot is what has everything make sense.

To say ''a DM has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions'' is exactly the same as saying ''the DM has a railroaded plot''. It does not matter if the DM has an ''evil railroad plot'' or they are just ''impossibly false improvising'', it's the same thing.

Like start with the basic plot of ''the PC's are going into the evlen woods to find a lost magic item'' (and yes, we are saying the ''sandboxy'' players did eventually pick this plot with their own free will)

Now, the Railroad DM makes the setting and an adventure, including encounters, NPCs, creatures, interesting things and notes. And the DM connects everything together in logical ways. For example the DM makes an elven king and his brother the rebel bandit and some politics and backstory. The DM also makes a note that ''the elven king likes people that respect nature''. And dozens of other things.

Now Sandbox DM either has nothing prepared at all or has a random pile of mostly crunchy ''elf stuff''. So this DM ''randomly'' makes an elf king when the PC's enter the woods and lets say he also ''randomly makes the elven king likes people that respect nature''. And lets say this DM ''randomly'' makes the kings rebel brother too. Though, of course, this makes both games all most identical, except the railroad game has tons more detail.

The Sandbox can only be blank for a couple minutes, as once the DM starts making things you can't avoid railroad plots, unless the game is pointless and makes no sense. Like when the Pc's just destroy the woods as they are ''so super awesome'', the normal railroad game elf king would be upset and take action. Now the sandboxy elf king will ''react to the PCs' actions'', following the railroading plot the sandbox game is not meant to have...

So how is the Sandbox different?

PairO'Dice Lost
2016-11-09, 06:59 PM
To say ''a DM has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions'' is exactly the same as saying ''the DM has a railroaded plot''.

The DM reacting to the PCs' actions is exactly the opposite of the DM having a railroaded plot, because in a railroaded plot there's only one "correct" way to proceed, and the PCs have to react to the DM's plans and figure that correct way out. To use your elven magic item example:


Now, the Railroad DM makes the setting and an adventure, including encounters, NPCs, creatures, interesting things and notes. And the DM connects everything together in logical ways. For example the DM makes an elven king and his brother the rebel bandit and some politics and backstory. The DM also makes a note that ''the elven king likes people that respect nature''. And dozens of other things.

This is what a sandbox DM does too; statting up encounters, placing interesting things in the setting, giving NPCs backstories and motivations, and so forth is a constant for both game types. The thing is, though, that none of that is a plot, it's the background. You've described creating Rivendell for the Lord of the Rings campaign, but the plot is what happens when the Fellowship arrives.

In a railroad campaign, one of the things the DM does when creating the above setting and background material is decide how the adventure "should" progress. Let's say that the lost elven magic item is an Excalibur-style "whoever has this item is the true king" item, and the DM decides that PCs should team up with the king's brother to find it, because the king would rather it stay lost, so his preparation assumes that's what will happen: he stats up encounters with the king's guard (because the PCs will be aligned with the bandits), but not encounters with bandits (because they'll be allied with the PCs) and not encounters with elven commoners (because they're irrelevant to the DM's plot).

The PCs show up and whenever they try to do anything but join up with the bandits, they're stymied. The party wants to talk to the king to ask for help finding this item, because he likes nature-lovers and the party includes two rangers and a druid? Oh, the king isn't seeing any non-elven visitors now. The party wants to find an intermediary to speak with the king? Oh, no one will cooperate. The party says screw it, let's just search the forest ourselves? Oh, only the bandit leader knows the forest well enough to have a chance to find it. And so on: the party is steered in the direction the DM wants until they give in or the game folds. That's a railroad.

A sandbox campaign, by contrast, is created without that focus on a single plot. The sandbox DM in this scenario stats up encounters with the king's guard, but also with the bandits, elven commoners, and various non-elves who live in the forest, too, and jots down notes about how they'll react to the PCs if they're on their own, if they're with the king's guard, if they're with the bandits, etc. The PCs show up, and the results of their plans are based not on the DM's desire for a certain plot, but on their actions and character. If the PCs decide they want to talk with the king and ask for his help, the king will probably readily agree if it's a party of elven rangers and druids, probably refuse if it's a party of half-orc barbarians and blighters, and probably require some convincing if it's a bunch of human fighters and clerics. If the PCs decide they want to look around the forest on their own, tromping through the trees won't really get them anywhere but making allies with the native fey, staying away from guard patrols, and so forth will bear fruit. No one particular approach is forced on the PCs, and the campaign doesn't bend around the PCs to make things go the way the DM wants.

And of course both of these campaign styles can be done on-the-fly instead of being prepared as such. If the PCs come up with something the DM hasn't prepared in the Forest Temple where the magic item is stored, so he throws in an unbreakable puzzle door on the spur of the moment and the players have to basically read his mind to come up with the right answer, that's characteristic of a railroad. If the PCs say "So, the king is a high elf and wants to keep his power, and his brother wants to steal the item for himself; are there any wood elves on the other side of the forest who might be able to help us find it without trying to steal it for themselves?" and the DM responds "Uh...yes, yes there are totally wood elves in this forest" and then pulls up some NPCs (pre-statted, from the books, or on the fly) to use for the wood elf tribe, that's characteristic of a sandbox.


The Sandbox can only be blank for a couple minutes, as once the DM starts making things you can't avoid railroad plots, unless the game is pointless and makes no sense. Like when the Pc's just destroy the woods as they are ''so super awesome'', the normal railroad game elf king would be upset and take action. Now the sandboxy elf king will ''react to the PCs' actions'', following the railroading plot the sandbox game is not meant to have...

In a railroad game, the PCs wouldn't be able to destroy the forest because the DM wanted the PCs to join up with the bandits to find the item and overthrow the king. In a sandbox game, destroying the forest changes the current plot from "try to find the ancient elven item" to "screw these elves, burn it all down" and the PCs get to deal with the fallout from pissing off an entire elven kingdom and all the forest's inhabitants, and whether or not they keep looking for the item or high-tail it out of there is up to the party. The game doesn't become a railroad just because NPCs are doing anything at all, otherwise the concept of a "railroad" loses all meaning.

2D8HP
2016-11-09, 07:46 PM
In an RPG, there's also the need for player agency.....
But you seem to be stuck at the start of an adventure. So the PC's pick a plot..ok, fine they do. But then a plot is a plot.....I feel like I'm in the odd position of at least in part agreeing with both Max and Darth (or at least with what I think their trying to say).

I also don't think a completely "player-led game is an RPG at all, it's a story-telling game which is not the same thing! And a completely GM-led game is a fiction recitation (an authors reading) also not the same thing!

I've done the story-telling game thing where you take turns adding to the narrative of what the author/player said before, and I've been in the audience for book readings, and while those activities can be fun, if I'm invited to play a FRPG, I'm disappointed if I find that it won't be one.

If I'm a player I except to experience a little bit of exploring a fantastic world. I don't expect to play a game in which I'm equally expected to make up the world, which interferes with my perception of exploring one. I'm also disappointed to find that the "FRPG" I've been to "play" is instead an invitation to be in the audience of an author's story recitation.

As GM I want to do some Worldbuilding, and than be surprised by what happens in the scenes I've set up, if I didn't want to be surprised I'd just write a story! And I absolutely would not want to be a GM in which my role is mostly to hold a stop watch.

It may just be my lack of imagination, but extremely player-led, and completely GM-led RPG's just don't seem that fun to me, and hardly RPG's at all.

Fun is in the balance.

Lorsa
2016-11-10, 03:41 AM
"Player-led railroad"?

How does such an anti-awesome monstrosity even exist?

Please warn us!



Apart from the example Frozen Feet listed, there is also the case when the GM provides little structure at the beginning of the campaign. Something like "so, you are in city X, in political campaign Y, what do you do?". Problem is, you know very little of the political landscape of the city, or even your immediate surroundings, to be able to act. Then, when you eventually manage to figure out some course of action that would lead to adventure, the adventures themselves follow a very railroad-y structure.

In a way, I think it arrives from a GM who doesn't want to be railroading, but confuses where the agency needs to be in order to avoid it.



These are overly simple definitions.

A railroad is a sequence of events, each of which must be met in order, and solved with the single pre-set solution. If you never think to touch the purple hilt of your sword to the chartreuse spot on the door, you will never pass through the door, never find the Mace of Guffin needed to travel to where the BBEG is, and thus, you will never go further in the one and only adventure.

The railroad track goes through that door, and the purple hilt is your ticket to the depot with the Mace of Guffin..

I've seen many adventures in which there's a moderately well-structured story the GM has written, but any clever solution might work. This does not feel like a railroad to me.

I know they were overly simple definitions. Even so, I think they apply to your example. If the GM has written a book, there is already a plan for how every scene should be executed. The book says "the heroes went into the room, then touched the chartreuse spot with the purple hilt of the sword". The world might say "there is enemy X who needs to be stopped with the Mace of Guffin, which lies in maze Y".

So even though I fully recognize the oversimplification, a railroad is pre-written, just like a book. A story, which could evolve in any direction based on the players' choices is neither a book nor a railroad.



But you seem to be stuck at the start of an adventure. So the PC's pick a plot..ok, fine they do. But then a plot is a plot. It has a path and story and pre scripted events and a time table. If it does not have them things, then it's not a plot...it's just random stuff happening randomly. The plot is what has everything make sense.

Generally, I thought the PC's picked an adventure and not a plot.


To say ''a DM has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions'' is exactly the same as saying ''the DM has a railroaded plot''. It does not matter if the DM has an ''evil railroad plot'' or they are just ''impossibly false improvising'', it's the same thing.

No, it's not the same thing.



So how is the Sandbox different?

This has been explained to you several times already, over a multitude of threads.



It may just be my lack of imagination, but extremely player-led, and completely GM-led RPG's just don't seem that fun to me, and hardly RPG's at all.

Fun is in the balance.

I've had similar thoughts actually. Basically, you want the GM to run the world, and you as player to run your own character.

Cluedrew
2016-11-10, 08:01 AM
Fun is in the balance.True, even the most extreme (playable) linear adventure & sandbox game will have a lot of common elements. For instance sandbox games will have moment where the GM pitches bits of plot and the players go with it. Linear games will allow the players to make choices and change the path ahead (although rarely ones that change the main plot).

The difference is in how they decide to balance out. Really (like alignment) they can be considered to mark out areas on a single scale, but the design decisions that lead to them tend to be quite different.

Quertus
2016-11-10, 08:18 AM
Settings with long-range ESP like Ki detection or Locate person or whatever are especially prone to this because people have unfortunate habit to use them as "plot sense" and do not let little things like time and space prevent them from insisting their character should be part of or at least aware of every scene.

... And characters being aware of every scene is bad why?


This thread definitely gets into one of the most abstract and argued part of gaming, not just Tabletop games.

Basically, the concept of linear verse non-linear.

What is often forgotten is that Linear and Non-linear aren't either or, they are a spectrum, based on how tightly the sequence of evens will occur. A certain level of linearity is needed in order to make a coherent story, otherwise you just get a game of Minecraft. However, there cannot be too much linearity, or else the players feel like they aren't even playing.

There is a word that I like to use a lot when discussing literature and gaming:

Agency.

This is a VERY important word and concept for writers, game designers, and GMs alike. How much control over their lives do the characters/PCs have?

A character will not have entire control, because things will happen beyond their power, the question is, how much does their decision affect the consequences, and how much control did they have over making that decision to begin with?

It gets complicated, but a character who suddenly is asked by a deity "Pick one land to live and one to destroy", that has no agency for the character because they had no control over what lead to them having to make that decision. If instead the player had learned of an evil plot to destroy both lands and got to the macguffin in time, but only had enough capability to save one of the lands, then they have much more agency.

A GM and/or game designer needs to provide situations where decisions matter, and the sequences that happen afterwards are determined by their decisions and actions, but also needs to provide enough structure so that the player can have things to react to, confront, seek out, or otherwise get entangled with. Conflict drives a story.

Long story short, a GM/DM has to figure out how much agency a player has, trying to make sure they have enough to make them feel like they have full control of the character, but not so much that they are not motivated to engage in the story.

And each GM has to figure out how much they need to give their players and how much structure is needed and what they can do to match their particular style.

All about agency.

That's... a very different definition of agency that I've been using. Hmmm... I suspect that, if you took a 500-level course, to get your masters in agency, these concepts might be mentioned, but I doubt they'd likely matter much in your average game. Usually it's more a matter of having the player able to make choices, and having those choices matter.

Although... this might explain why I didn't like one GMs style of adherence to the law of unintended consequences, without ever giving actions their intended consequences. It was never "yes, but..."; it was always "no, however...".

thirdkingdom
2016-11-10, 08:26 AM
I hate to dive back into this, especially with someone who appears to be trolling, but I think the problem is in definition. A linear adventure is not the same as a railroad. Most published adventures, for instance, are *not railroads*. Here are a couple of definitions of what a railroad is:

From rpgtheoryreview, emphasis mine:

Railroading is a term used to describe the imposition of a predefined set of resolutions onto the choices and conflicts that occur in play by a storyteller or game master. Essentially, it's what happens when a person tries to make themselves the sole author of the story. . . .

Most games have some predefined narrative structure, and there's often an agreement among players that games will contain particular plot types or elements. Railroading only takes place when player actions are prevented from having any effect on the flow of events.


From TVtropes


The answer is called Railroading: In short, the GM takes any measure necessary to ensure that there is only one direction the campaign may proceed — his planned direction. . .
In practice, the use of Railroading is generally regarded as one sign of a poor GM, as forcing the players down a single predetermined path (like cars on a railroad track, hence the name) runs against to the collaborative nature of a tabletop RPG in the first place, where every player is allowed an equal voice in dictating what happens next.


From RPG Geek:


Referring to a game's story being forced in a particular direction most often by the GM

An adventure with a "plot" is not by definition a railroad, nor is a linear adventure (such as the many Pathfinder APs); the problem comes into being when the DM has already determined how the players must proceed *and* forces that outcome to occur, regardless of what they actually do.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-10, 08:57 AM
... And characters being aware of every scene is bad why?


The player, or the character?

If the character isn't on hand, and has no way of being aware... how would they be aware?

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-10, 09:16 AM
Hmmm... I suspect that, if you took a 500-level course, to get your masters in agency, these concepts might be mentioned...

Sorry I get sort of ranty about this sort of thing. This is all opinion anyway, but I majored in game design and I watch a lot of videos from game critics so I end up spending a lot of time pondering and eventually pontificating about these concepts.

2D8HP
2016-11-10, 09:42 AM
Basically, you want the GM to run the world, and you as player to run your own character.
That's it!
Well said, your English is better than mine.
Thanks for distilling it.
:smile:

Segev
2016-11-10, 12:39 PM
Oh, it happens in play-by-post freeforms all the time.

Usually it goes like this: some clique of players come up with a "real cool" story arc without really considering how long it will take to implement. Then slowly but surely the game gets choked up by the players struggling to hit all the predetermined highs and lows, with characters, events and (at worst) players that don't fit the Grand Vision being sidelined.

It's also possible for a player to railroad themselves by making a highly reactionary character, failing to exercise creative agency or insisting that a character's rank/station/canonical superpower requires that character's presence in [some scenario]. Example: insisting a police officer must be present at every crimescene of the game.

Settings with long-range ESP like Ki detection or Locate person or whatever are especially prone to this because people have unfortunate habit to use them as "plot sense" and do not let little things like time and space prevent them from insisting their character should be part of or at least aware of every scene.This reminds me of a character I half-created specifically to justify always being in interesting scenes, but also just as a way of always being of use to a fellow PC (or to an NPC): the cosmic butler.

He's just so supernally good at butlery that little things like time, space, and the laws of physics won't get in the way of him being on hand with exactly the items and services his master requires or desires precisely when they're wanted.

The cosmic butler hands you the exact drink you want the moment you start to consider wanting it, and it's what you wanted even if you weren't sure what you wanted. He is there, holding the door as you approach, and just has pulled the car up and is holding THAT door by the time you walk down the walkway to it. The ultimate batman, he has your clothes laid out and ready for exactly the occasion you need. He can offer you exactly the golf club or hunting rifle or high explosive grenade launcher you want at exactly the right time; loaded, oiled, and ready to use.

The cosmic butler has impeccable small talk, advice on all the important people in any event or gathering, and is never ruffled. He is always just finishing any menial task necessary just as you happen to enter a room, and looks dignified while doing it.

And, if asked how he did it, his usual reply is something along the lines of, "I couldn't allow to inconvenience you, Sir. It would be unprofessional."


Character agency is critical in fiction. Lack of character agency (or potential agency if the character is one who refuses to act) is a sign that I'm not going to care much for a story.

In an RPG, there's also the need for [I]player agency, and the two are intrinsically interwoven.I quite agree, especially with that last sentence.


But you seem to be stuck at the start of an adventure. So the PC's pick a plot..ok, fine they do. But then a plot is a plot. It has a path and story and pre scripted events and a time table. If it does not have them things, then it's not a plot...it's just random stuff happening randomly. The plot is what has everything make sense.Other posters have addressed this, but I'll throw in my two cents as well.

Plots are not railroads. Railroads aren't even always plots (but more railroads are plots than plots are railroads).

Railroads are linear; the PCs have no (or very limited) agency, following a prescribed path from beginning to end. If they have choices, they're "pick which branch of this path you'll take" choices, not "how do you solve this problem?" choices.


To say ''a DM has the NPCs and environment react to the PCs' actions'' is exactly the same as saying ''the DM has a railroaded plot''. It does not matter if the DM has an ''evil railroad plot'' or they are just ''impossibly false improvising'', it's the same thing.

Like start with the basic plot of ''the PC's are going into the evlen woods to find a lost magic item'' (and yes, we are saying the ''sandboxy'' players did eventually pick this plot with their own free will)

Now, the Railroad DM makes the setting and an adventure, including encounters, NPCs, creatures, interesting things and notes. And the DM connects everything together in logical ways. For example the DM makes an elven king and his brother the rebel bandit and some politics and backstory. The DM also makes a note that ''the elven king likes people that respect nature''. And dozens of other things.

Now Sandbox DM either has nothing prepared at all or has a random pile of mostly crunchy ''elf stuff''. So this DM ''randomly'' makes an elf king when the PC's enter the woods and lets say he also ''randomly makes the elven king likes people that respect nature''. And lets say this DM ''randomly'' makes the kings rebel brother too. Though, of course, this makes both games all most identical, except the railroad game has tons more detail.

The Sandbox can only be blank for a couple minutes, as once the DM starts making things you can't avoid railroad plots, unless the game is pointless and makes no sense. Like when the Pc's just destroy the woods as they are ''so super awesome'', the normal railroad game elf king would be upset and take action. Now the sandboxy elf king will ''react to the PCs' actions'', following the railroading plot the sandbox game is not meant to have...

So how is the Sandbox different?The DM preparing encounters doesn't make it a railroad.

A railroad requires that the PCs be only allowed to go to this encounter first, that they must resolve that encounter in a particular way to get to the next encounter, which they must face in a particular way to get to the next, etc. etc.

What you've described here as a "railroad" is not one. It's a sandbox, assuming the DM has prepared his various encounters and NPCs such that they'll react organically to the PCs' choices.

The question to ask yourself is, "How many choices do the PCs have, and how meaningful are they?" A railroad will have only 1 meaningful "choice:" Pursue this in a precise way. A branching railroad will have several meaningful choices, but they'll be "multiple choice," and you can't pick anything off-menu. Picking a choice just sends you down one of several branches. (Most video game RPGs which offer choices to the PCs use this technique, and have spiderwebs of myriad choices, some of which re-cross and some of which branch off forever. And some RPGs have a pseudo-sandbox of mini-railroads, which is what you're thinking of, most likely, when you say that the railroad starts when a plot is picked.)

A sandbox is a "fill in the blank" question as opposed to a railroad's "multiple choice" question. (A false sandbox will be a railroad where the "blank" only has one right answer, and the players must guess it. A true sandbox has no 'wrong' answer, in that the world will react organically to anything they do, and the 'rightness' of the answer only varies based on how well it leads the PCs towards their goals.)




So I think the fundamental problem is that you, Darth_Ultron, have a false definition of both "sandbox" and "railroad."

Which is what I keep trying to make a point of. Every time you characterize a sandbox as "random," you're missing the point of the term entirely. And, moreover, you're mischaracterizing railroads when you try to say that any preparation at all leads to one.

It's only a railroad if the PCs' choices are planned for them. It's a sandbox if the PCs can do anything, and the encounters are prepared such that they can react to whatever the PCs are doing.

thirdkingdom
2016-11-10, 01:35 PM
Other posters have addressed this, but I'll throw in my two cents as well.

Plots are not railroads. Railroads aren't even always plots (but more railroads are plots than plots are railroads).

Railroads are linear; the PCs have no (or very limited) agency, following a prescribed path from beginning to end. If they have choices, they're "pick which branch of this path you'll take" choices, not "how do you solve this problem?" choices.

The DM preparing encounters doesn't make it a railroad.

A railroad requires that the PCs be only allowed to go to this encounter first, that they must resolve that encounter in a particular way to get to the next encounter, which they must face in a particular way to get to the next, etc. etc.

What you've described here as a "railroad" is not one. It's a sandbox, assuming the DM has prepared his various encounters and NPCs such that they'll react organically to the PCs' choices.

The question to ask yourself is, "How many choices do the PCs have, and how meaningful are they?" A railroad will have only 1 meaningful "choice:" Pursue this in a precise way. A branching railroad will have several meaningful choices, but they'll be "multiple choice," and you can't pick anything off-menu. Picking a choice just sends you down one of several branches. (Most video game RPGs which offer choices to the PCs use this technique, and have spiderwebs of myriad choices, some of which re-cross and some of which branch off forever. And some RPGs have a pseudo-sandbox of mini-railroads, which is what you're thinking of, most likely, when you say that the railroad starts when a plot is picked.)

A sandbox is a "fill in the blank" question as opposed to a railroad's "multiple choice" question. (A false sandbox will be a railroad where the "blank" only has one right answer, and the players must guess it. A true sandbox has no 'wrong' answer, in that the world will react organically to anything they do, and the 'rightness' of the answer only varies based on how well it leads the PCs towards their goals.)




So I think the fundamental problem is that you, Darth_Ultron, have a false definition of both "sandbox" and "railroad."

Which is what I keep trying to make a point of. Every time you characterize a sandbox as "random," you're missing the point of the term entirely. And, moreover, you're mischaracterizing railroads when you try to say that any preparation at all leads to one.

It's only a railroad if the PCs' choices are planned for them. It's a sandbox if the PCs can do anything, and the encounters are prepared such that they can react to whatever the PCs are doing.

Specifically, regarding a railroad, that single choice will happen whatever the players choose to do: the button will get pushed, the bad guy will escape and live to fight another day, the kidnapped prince will be killed before he can be rescued, etc.

kyoryu
2016-11-10, 01:46 PM
So I think the fundamental problem is that you, Darth_Ultron, have a false definition of both "sandbox" and "railroad."

No, the problem is he doesn't like people telling him that they don't like railroads, since that's how he likes to run games, so he's created false definitions of both to "prove" that people actually *do* like railroads and so their objects are factually incorrect.

Airk
2016-11-10, 02:05 PM
This thread contains a whole lot of bad ideas, but the fundamental idea of the OP is reasonably sound. Though honestly, it's not "player led" vs "GM led" binary, but rather a scale.

The suggestion that all games eventually become GM lead because the GM creates the "plot" is incorrect, however. The way this is avoided is to give the players creative input. This can done either via the PbtA "questions" method, the Burning Wheel Beliefs method (If a player creates a belief that says "For the good of the Kingdom, I must overthrown my brother, the Duke." then by definition, there is a Kingdom, a Duke who is that character's brother, and the game is going to be about overthrowing him.) various sorts of metacurrency methods, or whatever. The actual approach is less relevant than the fact that the players have input beyond saying "My characters want to do <thing>"

Darth Ultron
2016-11-10, 05:33 PM
An adventure with a "plot" is not by definition a railroad, nor is a linear adventure (such as the many Pathfinder APs); the problem comes into being when the DM has already determined how the players must proceed *and* forces that outcome to occur, regardless of what they actually do.

Now see this is what I just outright call a jerk DM. The jerk DM that writes a novel, has the players experience it, but they are little more then ''readers'' and nothing they do matters. But I would not just toss the ''jerk Dm'' under the wide umbrella of ''it's a railroad and all railroads are bad''.



Plots are not railroads. Railroads aren't even always plots (but more railroads are plots than plots are railroads).

Railroads are linear; the PCs have no (or very limited) agency, following a prescribed path from beginning to end. If they have choices, they're "pick which branch of this path you'll take" choices, not "how do you solve this problem?" choices.

Unless your game world is random and makes no sense, you have to have a railroad plot. If it's not linear, it's just a random mess.

I think your getting the ''general fiction'' type plot and railroading confused with the ''RPG'' type plot and railroading. In general fiction all the characters follow the plot like they are conductors on a zombie train, but that is nothing like an RPG.

The ''choose your own adventure '' is half the point of most RPGs, but it is still ''choose from the path''. Sure a player can ''do anything''......''on the path''.

Railroading, in an RPG, really just comes down to fooling the players or when the players choose to fool themselves. And railroading is only a problem when the players or DM is a jerk.

It's like take the most basic dragon slaying adventure. So the DM puts some swords of dragon slaying in a crypt from some long dead dragonslayers. So is this a railroad? A jerk player would say so as they feel ''forced'' to go to the crypt. Though most players would say it's just ''common sense'' and not be jerks. But even in the hardcore railroad, it's not like the DM is taking control of the characters and forcing them to go to the crypt first. The players are free to not go to the crypt, though that is really a dumb move most of the time.




A railroad requires that the PCs be only allowed to go to this encounter first, that they must resolve that encounter in a particular way to get to the next encounter, which they must face in a particular way to get to the next, etc. etc.

Other then the jerk DMs, who everyone agrees are bad...where else do you see this type a railroad? I've read at least a hundred adventures, and just about all of them are filled with ''what if'' boxes and ''depending on how the story unfolds''. Run five games where five groups go through the same adventure and each one will have a different story at the end.



A sandbox is a "fill in the blank" question as opposed to a railroad's "multiple choice" question.


But the ''fill in the blank'' is not unique to sandboxes.... A railroad has them too. What type of non jerk DM railroad does not have ''endless choices''? A fundamental element most RPGs is a player can ''try'' anything. And this is where you get the jerk players that see railroads everywhere:

The players want to go south to the ''Land of Shapesand'' and the DM says ''up ahead is a wide river and a wooden bridge across it. And the players, rightly so, think a monster might be guarding the bridge. The jerk player will immediately cry railroad as they feel ''forced'' to encounter the bridge monster. But any player with a brain cell of common sense will say ''well, it makes sense for a monster to guard a spot they know travelers will pass'', and of course it is. But in any RPG the players do have the ''fill in the blank'' of they can try to cross the river, or fly over it, or build their own bridge or whatever. The player ways might not succeed, and if the DM just ''has them all fail'' he is a jerk, but no normal (non-jerk) game forces the players to ''have the characters only take the bridge''.

Friv
2016-11-10, 06:31 PM
Unless your game world is random and makes no sense, you have to have a railroad plot. If it's not linear, it's just a random mess.

Why do you think that?


The ''choose your own adventure '' is half the point of most RPGs, but it is still ''choose from the path''. Sure a player can ''do anything''......''on the path''.

And if they do something off the path?

Segev
2016-11-10, 06:44 PM
You're really trying to define "railroad" to be broader than it is, Darth_Ultron.

And you're trying to define "sandbox" as "random," which... is at least as inaccurate.


Are you truly incapable of parsing what I and others have been writing? Because at this point you're not responding to what we're writing; you're redefining things and ignoring what we're saying in favor of what you want to keep insisting.



A railroad is mostly defined by whether there is a sequence of events which the players must play through.

A sandbox is mostly defined by how much freedom the players have to approach it from any angle.


The "dragonslaying adventure" is only a railroad if the PCs have to go on it, HAVE to follow the specific trail of breadcrumbs to get there, HAVE to approach it in the prescribed manner the DM predicted they would, etc.


Most games I've run, for the record, have had more railroad than sandbox to them. I've had a plot to unveil, and only the one major story going on. I've even had specific reveals that the party had to come across to advance things. I am not saying "all railroads are bad." But if I had run it more as a sandbox, it wouldn't have mattered if the PCs ever figured out the "reveals" or pursued the plot-relevant clues to the plot-relevant events; however they approached whatever problems they chose to solve would have been fine.

A sandbox would instead have had all the NPCs in place with an idea of how things would go if the PCs never showed up. Rather than having plot notes in place for what I expect the PCs to try to do, and where they are likely to bring about plot events, I'd just have encounters, and whatever the PCs did would cause the encounters to alter in the future as "what happens without the PCs" changes to "what happens now that the PCs have interfered in the manner they did."


The problem is that you keep insisting that sandboxes are random. They're not. Sandboxes simply lack pre-defined roles for the PCs. The PCs find something they like and get involved. This CAN step into a more railroad structure at this point. The plot they're involved in was waiting for their attention, and they step into the roles the DM had planned for them, making the "choose your own adventure" choices as they go.

But it can also remain a sandbox. The DM's plans tell him what the motives of the characters involved are, and what environmental concerns are out there (from literal weather and environment to other events which happen due to forces of nature or some outside factor). He has enough information about all the NPCs and creatures and the setting in general to react to what the PCs do. (Note that this level of improv is required of railroads, too, unless it's the kind you, Darth_Ultron, term a "Jerk DM" railroad where everything is 100% scripted.)

While the GM may have some notes guiding what he thinks likely outcomes of various forms of interference are, he isn't guiding towards any of them, and will react to things not going according to any of those plans by having the situation react organically.

But again: the difference here is that the GM didn't create holes in his cast which the PCs are to fill, if he's running a sandbox. If he's running a railroad (of any degree), he did. A railroad has a storyline which assumes the PCs will pursue particular actions.

A sandbox has a set of circumstances which will unfold in certain ways with various contingencies, but which the PCs don't have a pre-set role, and there's no assumption that the PCs will push any of them in specific directions to advance "the plot." Instead, the plot is an emergent property of the PCs' interactions with the circumstances of the encounters they choose to pursue.

There's no "fooling" the players involved. It's just a different sort of planning.





Another way to look at it is incremental plotting. The DM only ever has detailed designs for the start of the game. The "temporary" sandbox Darth_Ultron likes to say will become a railroad as soon as the PCs pick a plot hook.

But when they pick that plot hook, the DM only has the situation at the "beginning" of the "plot" for that storyline set up. He lets the PCs interact with it however they like. At the point where it "would" become a railroad, he doesn't have specific plans...and his next step in planning is to lay out the detailed situation-as-it-is, as if they'd just started a "new" adventure with "new" hooks.


In essence, it's sandboxes with hooks all the way down. Each time a hook is bitten, they explore that situation, alter it by their choices, and have a number of possible hooks to pursue further. Pick a hook, and then that one becomes their new sandbox. At some point, as well, in most sandboxes, proactive PCs will start making their own hooks to pursue.

Quertus
2016-11-10, 10:25 PM
The player, or the character?

If the character isn't on hand, and has no way of being aware... how would they be aware?

I was referencing the omniscient character, who (presumably) has a way to be omniscient.


Sorry I get sort of ranty about this sort of thing. This is all opinion anyway, but I majored in game design and I watch a lot of videos from game critics so I end up spending a lot of time pondering and eventually pontificating about these concepts.

Ah. Explains the surprising take on things. Please don't let me discourage you from "ranting" your take on things.

Cluedrew
2016-11-10, 10:37 PM
A railroad is mostly defined by whether there is a sequence of events which the players must play through.I did my definition of railroading a while back and one of its main features is that one player (usually GM) forces the others along a particular path. Force being an important word here, if everyone follows a pre-determined path because they want to its not a railroad. It only a railroad if it has rails.

Still I accept that not everyone uses the term like that. Many people include most linear adventures under that title and some others... OK Darth Ultron seems to include about everything under it. So I try to take that into account when I read posts. This has gotten rather meta.

Also the Cosmic Butler sounds completely awesome.

ComradeBear
2016-11-10, 10:48 PM
Reminder, because this has apparently not been said enough:
Darth Ultron defines Railroading as "Playing any TRPG where the GM does more than roll on random tables and burble incoherently."

If it is NOT that, Darth Ultron labels that railroading.

He does not care what railroading actually is, how the rest of the people use the term, or what the term is supposed to convey. It conveys whatsoever thing he believes it to, and the rest of the world can stuff it.

Attempts to define it for him are useless. They have never worked.

Attempts to point out faulty logic are outright ignored, because he's not here to discuss. I don't know what he's here for, but it's not anything involving communicating by the same terms as we are.

Feel free to engage him if you really like to argue for the sake of it. If not, just let it fly right by. You're not going to change his mind anymore than you'll persuade the Nile to flow the other way.

2D8HP
2016-11-10, 11:45 PM
defines Railroading as "Playing any TRPG where the GM does more than roll on random tables and burble incoherently."Just wanted to point out that "1970's rules DnD had lots of random tables, including the infamous
http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/random_harlot_table.jpg

From the 1979 Dungeons Master's Guide
http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dungeon_masters_guide.jpg

(Gygax definitely made me check the dictionary and grow my vocabulary).

Improv was definitely part of the game then, and random tables can be an asset.
Don't dog them!
(please?)

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-11, 12:50 AM
Wasn't the table expanded in a subsequent edition to be 1d100 adjectives and 1d100 nouns?

ComradeBear
2016-11-11, 09:03 AM
Improv was definitely part of the game then, and random tables can be an asset.
Don't dog them!
(please?)

Just to be clear, I personally have no problem with rolling on a table. They're great for Hexcrawl games and other games involving wandering in the wilderness.

I'm simply summarizing the common logical thread I have observed from Darth. Nothing more.

Frozen_Feet
2016-11-11, 09:48 AM
To be honest, based on the thread title, I expected to see a discussion of something completely different than "what is a railroad?" or "what is a sandbox?" Hence, to me, the entire discussion is a sidetrack, and Darth Ultron and people replying to him are a particularly pointless sidetrack. We had this entire discussion many times over in the much more indicatively named "linear versus non-linear".

It is my opinion that where a game falls on linear-nonlinear -scale is completely orthogonal to whether a game is player- or GM-led, or even if the game is player- or GM-driven.

Segev
2016-11-11, 10:03 AM
Now see this is what I just outright call a jerk DM. The jerk DM that writes a novel, has the players experience it, but they are little more then ''readers'' and nothing they do matters. But I would not just toss the ''jerk Dm'' under the wide umbrella of ''it's a railroad and all railroads are bad''.

(...)

The players want to go south to the ''Land of Shapesand'' and the DM says ''up ahead is a wide river and a wooden bridge across it. And the players, rightly so, think a monster might be guarding the bridge. The jerk player will immediately cry railroad as they feel ''forced'' to encounter the bridge monster. But any player with a brain cell of common sense will say ''well, it makes sense for a monster to guard a spot they know travelers will pass'', and of course it is. But in any RPG the players do have the ''fill in the blank'' of they can try to cross the river, or fly over it, or build their own bridge or whatever. The player ways might not succeed, and if the DM just ''has them all fail'' he is a jerk, but no normal (non-jerk) game forces the players to ''have the characters only take the bridge''.

See, just as you can have a "jerk DM" with or without it being a real railroad, you can have a "jerk player" with or without it being a real railroad.

Your "bridge encounter" is a railroad if nothing except crossing the bridge and fighting the bridge troll to the DM's desired conclusion (whether that's killing it or befriending it or taking its quest to go to the dragon's lair and get the macguffin that the DM wants the players to pick up before going to the Land of Shapesand) is possible.

If the players see the bridge and guess, "There's a troll guarding it," and they decide that they'd rather go a half-mile to the right and conjure their own bridge, or fly, or shoot arrows with ropes attached across upon which to swing...

...and the DM lets them try, with reasonable difficulties applied, then it isn't a railroad.

...but the DM makes it impossible, then it is a railroad.


To be honest, based on the thread title, I expected to see a discussion of something completely different than "what is a railroad?" or "what is a sandbox?" Hence, to me, the entire discussion is a sidetrack, and Darth Ultron and people replying to him are a particularly pointless sidetrack. We had this entire discussion many times over in the much more indicatively named "linear versus non-linear".

It is my opinion that where a game falls on linear-nonlinear -scale is completely orthogonal to whether a game is player- or GM-led, or even if the game is player- or GM-driven.Fair enough, though I think it inevitable that you'll have some element of this.

I suppose you CAN have a player-led linear adventure. The degree to which that's really feasible is questionable, however, since the player-led aspect of a game is what the players choose to do. If a player proactively seeks a linear adventure, that's good, of course, for the adventure, but the adventure itself is perforce GM-led. The GM is the one who has the map of the line and who keeps unfolding it before the players. "Player-led" requires an inherent amount of sandboxyness in that player choices forge the path forward, which almost by definition makes the adventure non-linear. (The sole exception is when the players just happen to always pick the linear path as their path forward, without the DM having to lead them to it in any way. This is...rare...to say the least.)

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-11, 10:07 AM
I was referencing the omniscient character, who (presumably) has a way to be omniscient.


Somewhere in the chain of posts I missed the "omniscient" part.

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-11, 10:08 AM
I did my definition of railroading a while back and one of its main features is that one player (usually GM) forces the others along a particular path. Force being an important word here, if everyone follows a pre-determined path because they want to its not a railroad. It only a railroad if it has rails.


This reminds me of what I considered to be ingenious design in the game Skyrim.

As soon as you exit the cave after escaping Helgen, you can go anywhere you like. You aren't bound towards anything. The main quest points you towards Riverwood, and eventually towards Whiterun, but most people end up getting the Golden Claw as a sidequest and then going to Whiterun, and they NEVER feel forced to do so since they have the option of going ANYWHERE.

And some do. But the majority of them follow the main quest for a short while enough to make it so Dragons appear.

And it never feels like railroading.

Segev
2016-11-11, 10:11 AM
I did my definition of railroading a while back and one of its main features is that one player (usually GM) forces the others along a particular path. Force being an important word here, if everyone follows a pre-determined path because they want to its not a railroad. It only a railroad if it has rails.

In general, I agree, though I tend to treat linear adventures as having "grades" of "railroadyness." Essentially, if you're soft-forced to follow the adventure because failure to do so leads to no game, it's at least on some level a railroad. It just can be one where you can ride any of the cars you like, and even pick which train to switch to at each station.


Also the Cosmic Butler sounds completely awesome.Thanks! I sometimes like to think of him as the grand-nephew to Alfred, and confused as to why anybody thinks he holds a candle to the great-uncle he hopes to one day be like.

Frozen_Feet
2016-11-11, 12:08 PM
I suppose you CAN have a player-led linear adventure. The degree to which that's really feasible is questionable, however, since the player-led aspect of a game is what the players choose to do.

1) Feasible in what manner? It is certainly possible for such a game to go on for long periods of time. Whether it's any fun is questionable.

2) Players can very well choose to play snakes-and-ladders.


If a player proactively seeks a linear adventure, that's good, of course, for the adventure, but the adventure itself is perforce GM-led. The GM is the one who has the map of the line and who keeps unfolding it before the players. "Player-led" requires an inherent amount of sandboxyness in that player choices forge the path forward, which almost by definition makes the adventure non-linear. (The sole exception is when the players just happen to always pick the linear path as their path forward, without the DM having to lead them to it in any way. This is...rare...to say the least.)

You are assuming a traditional tabletop game with a GM. As I've already noted, GM-less freeform games are common and what you here describe as "rare at least" is common as well.

You'd do better to approach this as a thought experiment and discard the role of a GM entirely. Imagine a small group of nominal equals trying to seek a consensus despite differing tastes. Each pair of exclusive tastes removes one possible line of events, and this can be severe enough that only one viable compromise exists. It can also lead to what is known as "consensus trap" - that is, a scenario where there would be a change that could improve the situation, which would not be disagreed by anybody, but it is never voiced because everyone is afraid of offending others.

That is how you get a linear adventure no-one likes in a player-led game. Bizarrely enough, I've seen a lot of people suggest consensus gaming as sort of golden standard for even traditional tabletop games, without acknowledging these issues. (Or worse: the most obvious method of impartially breaking consensus, random chance AKA rolling dice is decried as WrongBad.)

kyoryu
2016-11-11, 12:30 PM
That is how you get a linear adventure no-one likes in a player-led game. Bizarrely enough, I've seen a lot of people suggest consensus gaming as sort of golden standard for even traditional tabletop games, without acknowledging these issues. (Or worse: the most obvious method of impartially breaking consensus, random chance AKA rolling dice is decried as WrongBad.)

Personally, I think the best idea to handle these issues is to get on the same page before the game starts.

Saying "let's play an RPG!" or "let's play D&D!" without further detail is like saying "let's see a movie!" or "let's eat food!" and committing to that without any thought as to what you will eat/see until that time.

Much like RPGs, while that might work for small groups that already know each others' preferences, it often results in chaos for people that aren't that intimate with each other. So work out which movie/food you're going to do in advance, and be willing to accept some people saying "hey, I'm going to bow out of this one, but call me next time!"

Frozen_Feet
2016-11-11, 12:47 PM
@Kyoryu: you just suggested forming a consensus as a solution to escaping a consensus-based trap. Starting to box yourself in earlier does not lead to any better results than doing so later.

Also, all your examples of doing stuff without much discussion are perfectly doable - and enjoying them isn't about intimacy or any such thing. It's about not expecting Heaven from spontaneous decisions.

Airk
2016-11-11, 01:23 PM
@Kyoryu: you just suggested forming a consensus as a solution to escaping a consensus-based trap. Starting to box yourself in earlier does not lead to any better results than doing so later.

Huh? No, he proposed forming a consensus to avoid later discovering that there was no consensus. Y'know, like planning.


Anyway, I think this is relevant and timely for this thread:

http://theangrygm.com/whos-driving-this-adventure-anyway/

Lacuna Caster
2016-11-11, 01:38 PM
@Kyoryu: you just suggested forming a consensus as a solution to escaping a consensus-based trap. Starting to box yourself in earlier does not lead to any better results than doing so later.
Maybe... but it can avoid the (distinct) no-concensus-is-viable trap, where the group eventually explodes over creative differences or has to begrudgingly put up with eachother.

In any case, I think Kyoryu is suggesting a concensus based on honest communication of initial preferences, rather than one based on saving face after sunk cost.

I do find your example of player-led railroading rather interesting, though.

Frozen_Feet
2016-11-11, 01:50 PM
Huh? No, he proposed forming a consensus to avoid later discovering that there was no consensus. Y'know, like planning.


Sure... but it does not make sense as response to me, when what I've been doing is describe problems arising from overplanning.

Again: the consensus trap comes to being when everyone is avoiding actions when they think the consensus is against them, when there really is not. The trap is only gotten out of when it's realized there is no consensus, which will not happen untill someone acts in a manner to break it.

Airk
2016-11-11, 01:56 PM
Again: the consensus trap comes to being when everyone is avoiding actions when they think the consensus is against them, when there really is not. The trap is only gotten out of when it's realized there is no consensus, which will not happen untill someone acts in a manner to break it.

How does coming to a clear, spoken consensus NOT help you avoid situations where people behave in a certain way because they erroneously think the consensus is against them? Wouldn't putting everything on the table make it clear to people what the consensus is and isn't and therefore avoid this "trap"? Your proposed solution is a solution of last resort, only to be used when you've already made a hash of things by not coming to a consensus in the first place.

Let's use a simple example - romance in a game.

In your hypothetical, there's no romance in the game because everyone is nervous that everyone else doesn't want it, until someone finally decides to go for it anyway, risking everyone going "WTF buddy?"
If you were following Kyoryu's advice, everyone would already know what the consensus was - or at the very least, understand that, hey, we talk about stuff that we do and don't want in the game - so either the problem is solved before you ever get to the problem, or at the very least, it gets solved by someone saying "Hey, are we okay with romance in this game?"

Kyoryu's solution is cleaner than yours.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-11, 02:38 PM
How does coming to a clear, spoken consensus NOT help you avoid situations where people behave in a certain way because they erroneously think the consensus is against them? Wouldn't putting everything on the table make it clear to people what the consensus is and isn't and therefore avoid this "trap"? Your proposed solution is a solution of last resort, only to be used when you've already made a hash of things by not coming to a consensus in the first place.

Let's use a simple example - romance in a game.

In your hypothetical, there's no romance in the game because everyone is nervous that everyone else doesn't want it, until someone finally decides to go for it anyway, risking everyone going "WTF buddy?"
If you were following Kyoryu's advice, everyone would already know what the consensus was - or at the very least, understand that, hey, we talk about stuff that we do and don't want in the game - so either the problem is solved before you ever get to the problem, or at the very least, it gets solved by someone saying "Hey, are we okay with romance in this game?"

Kyoryu's solution is cleaner than yours.


I think unstated expectations and unintended divergences in what players want from a game are the source of a lot of the discord we see in these threads.

2D8HP
2016-11-11, 03:11 PM
I think unstated expectations and unintended divergences in what players want from a game are the source of a lot of the discord we see in these threads.
True, but since surprise is an element of the game (otherwise why dice and other players?), I don't see how you can have consensus for every possible potential quarrel.
And I've definitely seen "no evil PC's" requirements be effectively ignored by players with nominally "Neutral" and "good" characters, so while it may help some, and if it hurts, it would likely be just by making personal conflicts come sooner rather than later, the worst table top experiences I've had I simply didn't imagine that they could happen, so I wouldn't have thought to ask to ban them before they happened!

Airk
2016-11-11, 03:17 PM
True, but since surprise is an element of the game (otherwise why dice and other players?), I don't see how you can have consensus for every possible potential quarrel.

No, but it sets the stage for people to discuss other things as they come up instead of just crossing their fingers and hoping for the best.



And I've definitely seen "no evil PC's" requirements be effectively ignored by players with nominally "Neutral" and "good" characters,

That is the fault of everyone at that table.


so while it may help some, and if it hurts, it would likely be just by making personal conflicts come sooner rather than later, the worst table top experiences I've had I simply didn't imagine that they could happen, so I wouldn't have thought to ask to ban them before they happened!

Well, you can learn from those, eh?

Frozen_Feet
2016-11-11, 03:37 PM
How does coming to a clear, spoken consensus NOT help you avoid situations where people behave in a certain way because they erroneously think the consensus is against them?

The fallacy is in assuming that "before the game" is a special time when you can form a consensus without falling into the trap. It isn't.


Wouldn't putting everything on the table make it clear to people what the consensus is and isn't and therefore avoid this "trap"?

Be realistic. There is never enough time nor incentive to put everything on the table for a mere tabletop game.


Your proposed solution is a solution of last resort, only to be used when you've already made a hash of things by not coming to a consensus in the first place.

That's both a contradiction to what you've said and a good way to fall into the trap.

Think of what you're saying. You're saying "put everything to the table first" and then you say "but attempting anything that's violating an assumed consensus should only be done as a last resort".

To use your own example: suppose player A is new to the hobby. They won't think to ask "can we have romance?", because they don't know what's supposed to happen in RPGs, period. Player B was told by unrelated person C, who isn't even present, that RPGs are not for romance. Player D would like to have romance, but fears to suggest it because A is of different gender and they think it would be creepy.

There. Before you've even had your desired first discussion, you have two players silencing themselves because they think making the suggestion would be against some wide-spread opinion, when in truth they are just projecting their preconceived notions on others. If only there was some way to break the ice - some endeavor where making a goof of yourself is acceptable, like a game of some sort....

Oh. Wait.

Airk
2016-11-11, 03:43 PM
The fallacy is in assuming that "before the game" is a special time when you can form a consensus without falling into the trap. It isn't.

Simply put: I disagree.



Be realistic. There is never enough time nor incentive to put everything on the table for a mere tabletop game.

Oh there's plenty of time and incentive, because it actually takes very little time for any given item, and the incentive is obvious. It's just a question of figuring out what "everything" is. Obviously, you won't get everything, but in so doing, you've established a willingness to discuss which eliminates the roadblock when it comes up for other things.




Think of what you're saying. You're saying "put everything to the table first" and then you say "but attempting anything that's violating an assumed consensus should only be done as a last resort".

To use your own example: suppose player A is new to the hobby. They won't think to ask "can we have romance?", because they don't know what's supposed to happen in RPGs, period. Player B was told by unrelated person C, who isn't even present, that RPGs are not for romance. Player D would like to have romance, but fears to suggest it because A is of different gender and they think it would be creepy.

There. Before you've even had your desired first discussion, you have two players silencing themselves because they think making the suggestion would be against some wide-spread opinion, when in truth they are just projecting their preconceived notions on others. If only there was some way to break the ice - some endeavor where making a goof of yourself is acceptable, like a game of some sort....

Or, you know, someone asking the question "What would you guys like to see in this game? We're all adults here, so we can talk about things. We're not judging, we're just discussing so that we don't take the game somewhere people don't want to go, or not go somewhere people want to. For example..."

Approaching this topic like mature adults who are capable of having a conversation without being offended instead of middle schoolers who are trying to guess what everyone else wants helps a lot.

kyoryu
2016-11-11, 04:05 PM
So the problem of people being afraid to bring things up out of fear that they'll be considered offensive is, I think, one primarily of table culture.

Even in that case, I think that pre-discussion helps. Honest talk about where peoples' boundaries are can help to create an atmosphere of trust, which can then empower people to try things - knowing that, if they cross a line, they'll be gently asked not to. Explicitly setting *that* expectation up front can help, as well.

This is, I think, a much bigger problem when putting together groups out of strangers than people that already know each other and have some idea of everyone's boundaries.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-11, 04:36 PM
No solution here is perfect.

But trying to discuss the nature of the game and shared or conflicting expectations, and at least getting the issues out of the table BEFORE you're seven sessions into the campaign... I just don't see how that can be useless or pointless.

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-11, 04:38 PM
Or, you know, someone asking the question "What would you guys like to see in this game? We're all adults here, so we can talk about things. We're not judging, we're just discussing so that we don't take the game somewhere people don't want to go, or not go somewhere people want to. For example..."


A good follow up question is asking "Now everyone be honest, what sorts of things are you NOT comfortable with? Is there anything you would be uncomfortable hearing about or included in the game?"

If they don't say anything, bring up some lighter things like Romance, and sex, and eventually, bring up rape. Some players are uncomfortable even discussing the idea. Animal abuse, personal abuse, nasty language OOC or IC, certain words even (I roleplay in an MMO with a player who does not like the C word).

It's important to bring these up in a quick and serious manner, so that you don't end up causing real discomfort down the line. You should also ask what they are not comfortable DOING and what they are not comfortable SEEING or HEARING.

You might want to ask that question individually and then afterwards announce to everyone that certain things are off limits or discouraged. Don't point fingers as to who.

Romance is one of those things that players can probably live with seeing and hearing about, but not always comfortable DOING. Asking about it might change whether you have the NPC barmaid hit on the bard.

Segev
2016-11-11, 05:07 PM
I would contend that a "GM-less free-form" that has a linear story railroading players along has those who are enforcing the story taking on the roll of GM. I don't mean that to try to redefine terms until I'm "right," either. I mean it by definition of the GM: they're setting the stage, they're defining the NPCs, they're structuring the encounters, and (since we're talking about this specific case) they're enforcing the rails.

A "GM-less" game is really just a game of people taking turns being the GM, with a lot more input from the "non-GM" players at various times and who the GM is changing possibly from scene to scene. Barring simply sitting and talking with no voluntary nor environmental action from the outside world, somebody is playing de facto GM at all times.

kyoryu
2016-11-11, 05:47 PM
Interestingly enough, though I hadn't heard this term before, the Angry GM has an article using almost the same terminology.

http://theangrygm.com/whos-driving-this-adventure-anyway/

He seems to divide things up based on who sets the next scene.... which is pretty much where I've landed as well. It's as clean of a definition as any I've found.

oxybe
2016-11-11, 07:24 PM
True, but since surprise is an element of the game (otherwise why dice and other players?), I don't see how you can have consensus for every possible potential quarrel.
And I've definitely seen "no evil PC's" requirements be effectively ignored by players with nominally "Neutral" and "good" characters, so while it may help some, and if it hurts, it would likely be just by making personal conflicts come sooner rather than later, the worst table top experiences I've had I simply didn't imagine that they could happen, so I wouldn't have thought to ask to ban them before they happened!

You can't honestly believe there is no difference between surprise due to RNG and surprise due to misaligned expectations?

The first is simply dice being dice. In an event where randomness is applicable, a 95% chance of success is still a 5% chance of failure.

The second is signing up for D&D and getting D&D... IN SPAAAAAAAAAACE! While technically Spelljammer is D&D, it doesn't conform to the traditional (or at least stereotypical) idea of D&D, which is Tolkien with the serial numbers filed off. Or maybe you're one of the unlucky folks who randomly signs up for a local game and gets one of those off-the-wall corner cases Penny Arcade joked about during 5th ed's crowdsourcing (https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xTWHDNT/1/L/i-xTWHDNT-L.jpg). Those aren't really what comes to people's mind when they think "D&D"

The first (RNG being RNG) rarely affects the entirely of the campaign by itself, or at least shouldn't. The whole course of the campaign residing on the roll of a dice should only occur and be the culmination of many actions and rolls, some successful and some failed.

The second (actual setting vs implied/assumed setting), on the other hand, should be made clear so everyone at the table is sitting down to play the same game. I've heard it said "two people using the same system are not necessarily playing the same game" so making sure everyone is on the same page is a necessity for ease of play, IMO. It's why I always recommend, even for groups that are experienced, a "session 0" where you discuss stuff like:
-campaign introduction and the characters' place in it
-explaining themes explored, genre the game is set in
-character creation & defining a power level everyone is comfortable with
-discussion on houserules
-a more in-depth discussion of scheduling

or anything else that might be relevant and just bounce ideas and energy off each other.

As for "no evil PC's", that's because it says nothing on behaviour. It's about as restrictive as "no green t-shirts": you just put on a black t-shirt and you're good to go. You're not telling the player things he can't do, just "don't check these boxes".

The correct line is "No disruptive PCs, I want to run a game like LotR, so bring a character that wishes to actively work with the group towards their goals". This gives FAR more direction on what is actually expected from the player "no evils", as "evil" can be pretty vague and dependent on personal interpretations.

2D8HP
2016-11-11, 08:52 PM
You can't honestly believe......:amused: Good start!

the traditional (or at least stereotypical) idea of D&D, which is Tolkien with the serial numbers filed off.
Um...
I'd describe D&D as more "Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser in a mish-mash of Dying Earth and Middle Earth as done by Marvel Comics in issues of 'Sword of Sorcery' in 1973 (PM me if you want to see my previous posts/rants on the subject).

Or maybe you're one of the unlucky folks who randomly signs up for a local game and gets one of those off-the-wall corner cases Penny Arcade joked about during 5th ed's crowdsourcing (https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xTWHDNT/1/L/i-xTWHDNT-L.jpg).Hilarious! The last 1e era D&D table I found (and walked out on) was a "Variant D&D game" (we didn't say "homebrew" back then).

oxybe
2016-11-11, 09:43 PM
:amused: Good start!
You're welcome!

But that opener was in direct response to yours :

True, but since surprise is an element of the game (otherwise why dice and other players?), I don't see how you can have consensus for every possible potential quarrel.
This is full of hyperbole, so I see no reason to not give it the lack of respect it deserves. No one speaks in such absolutes like "every possible potential quarrel" or how because some randomness/chance exists in some areas of the game that any and all other aspects should bow to the altar of RNGesus.

And if someone does speak in those absolutes, I see no reason to begin conversation or discussion with them... I have better things to do and spend my energy on.


Um...
I'd describe D&D as more "Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser in a mish-mash of Dying Earth and Middle Earth as done by Marvel Comics in issues of 'Sword of Sorcery' in 1973 (PM me if you want to see my previous posts/rants on the subject).

Not really interested in reading rants, but what one believes or feels isn't really what the general public thinks, ie: the stereotypical / traditional idea of D&D basically an off-brand tolkien.

My personal ideal of D&D is probably closer to classical greek myth in scope with a dash of European, Roman, Mesopotamian, Asian (of the east & central variety), Aztec and North American mythologies and religions for taste, built around playing a fast and loose (and rather liberal for interpretation) group version of Vogler's Hero's Journey.

But what I want from D&D, what you want from D&D is not what the general public thinks of D&D... which is effectively a bargin bin LotR: elves, dwarves, short people, orcs and goblins with some big baddie tossed in as a central focus.

That or something you'd see on the side of a van in the '70 (or a throwback to that style (http://s84.photobucket.com/user/SericeousBurden/media/vanMural/Bedi_0030.jpg.html)).


Hilarious! The last 1e era D&D table I found (and walked out on) was a "Variant D&D game" (we didn't say "homebrew" back then).

The last 1st ed game I played was a Halloween one-shot a former player of ours ran using the Unearthed Arcana like... 7 years ago? I miss that guy. We'd just hang out and chill on nights where the game was cancelled.

kyoryu
2016-11-11, 09:56 PM
As for "no evil PC's", that's because it says nothing on behaviour. It's about as restrictive as "no green t-shirts": you just put on a black t-shirt and you're good to go. You're not telling the player things he can't do, just "don't check these boxes".

Well, first off, there's certain classes you literally can't play without "checking that box".

Secondly, your point seems to come down to "People will do what they want, even if they agree otherwise, unless there's mechanics stopping them."

I agree, that's true for some people. I don't play with those people.

oxybe
2016-11-11, 10:53 PM
Well, first off, there's certain classes you literally can't play without "checking that box".

Secondly, your point seems to come down to "People will do what they want, even if they agree otherwise, unless there's mechanics stopping them."

I agree, that's true for some people. I don't play with those people.

My point is the exact opposite of that: my point is, be clear with what you expect from people instead of punishing someone a few sessions down the line because they failed to mind read you on a subject.

Since you seemed to have stopped reading after line, I make it pretty clear: If you don't want certain behaviours, you don't put a vague and quite frankly subjective mechanical restriction like "don't be evil" and expect it to stop some behaviours, you tell them: "No disruptive PCs, I want to run a game like LotR, so bring a character that wishes to actively work with the group towards their goals".

That's not a vague mechanical restriction put in place in a false hope to quell some unspoken actions, that's a clear definition of expected behaviour from the player.

Lorsa
2016-11-12, 04:02 AM
Unless your game world is random and makes no sense, you have to have a railroad plot. If it's not linear, it's just a random mess.

Example: Eclipse Phase adventure (meant to be just a single multi-session adventure, not the start of a campaign)
GM: Myself
Players: Three friends from a city I used to live in.
Background: Following the setting guidelines, the characters are agents of Firewall. They have never worked together, some were new to Firewall altogether, whereas others were new to being Sentinels.

The game started off with the characters meeting another agent that has gathered them to send them on a mission. He tells them he got wind of a secret auction of various dangerous and X-risk rated goods that is going to take place on a scum-owned Mars cycler. Their job is to figure out when and where the auction is taking place, get an invitation, investigate the various items and take note of any ones that are specifically bad, find out who is selling and buying what and lastly to prevent X-risk items from falling into the wrong hands.

The characters didn't much seem to like their new contact, who seemed to be the guy in charge of them. They thought he was a bit of a punce, but acknowledged that he might have been puncing and decided to do the mission anyway.

Taking a short break from the story to do some analyzing; the mission clearly came from the GM. On the other hand, they made their characters as being members of Firewall, an organisation in which you are expected to get regular missions, so it wasn't like the players were forced to do this. Even in the game, the characters could have decided to screw this Firewall business, or their new boss, and go on a different path. They didn't, but they could have. Presenting an adventure, or a mission, is NOT railroading, and I'm fairly certain everyone would agree with this. From this moment, everything else that I had planned was a list of various types of individuals / factions that would attend the auction, a list of various items that would be sold, information on the scum mars cycler in general (such as names various shops, clubs, bars, brothels and the like) and 4-5 unrelated encounters / situations / adventures that could occur on the ship in any order (or not, depending on).

As the characters had very limited information, they decided to use their various reputation networks and contacts in order to gather some knowledge. I reminded them that if they wanted, they could do it while traveling towards the cycler, as the communication range from their shuttle was certainly long enough. One of them with a lot of anarchist rep got a bit of information on how the ship works, what rules (or lack of them) are in place, but also managed to get a name of a famous morph designer (the character herself was also into genehacking and morph design). Another character who was a smuggler with a lot of criminal contacts got a confirmation over the network that the auction was indeed taking place (even though his rep wasn't high enough to cash in a favor to know when and where). Tweaking his question somewhat to ask if anyone was doing any "special" type of smuggling job to scum ship anytime recently. I decided that this was likely so, and another smuggler responded by saying she was currently transporting three "hypercorp type" people and a large crate to the Mars cycler. Due to smuggler-client privileges, she wouldn't give off more details, but the characters figured out they could seek her out when they both got to the ship and use their physic character to extract more information.

Taking another analysis time-out; the players have already managed to advance "the plot", as they've acquired useful information and leads. This plot advancement was not prepared by me in advance, it evolved organically due to the players' actions (using their networks to gather intelligence) and logical outcomes based on the premise of the game world. It can thus impossibly be called a "railroad" as it lacks any pre-set rails. However, I fail to see how it can be defined as a "random mess". The only randomness involved was in the normal success/failure rolls of the gather information checks (the third player also tried to use his networks but failed his roll so didn't really get any information). It was hardly messy either, as the results obtained where clearly within the verisimilitude boundaries of the game.

When they arrive at the ship and move out from the docking part towards the commercial area, they encounter three individuals that claims to be "customs inspection" and say they want one of the character's morphs (the one with a very rare and pretty morph). This group is equivalent to the "troll guarding the bridge", and during their research they were told both that there weren't any customs inspection, and that new people often get jumped, robbed and morph-jacked. So this encounter was hardly a surprise to the players. The PCs cut the discussion short and opens fire all of a sudden, shoot down one of the robbers and then intimidates the other two to stop shooting. After some discussion and haggling, they allow the robbers to keep their shot friends' morph in return for a substantial amount of local reputation.

Analysis; this encounter was actually pre-planned from my part. However, the players were full aware that these sort of hings were common, and decided to take no precautions whatsoever. If they had use their networks to get into contact with someone that could come and meet them before they arrived for example, they could have avoided it. The players being players though, they actually hoped to be ambushed, since they figured they were bad-ass enough to survive and then rob the robbers. The outcome of them receiving rep was not something I planned for, it happened because the remaining robbers didn't want to loose their stuff and really didn't have anything else to offer.

Continuing with the game, the characters sought out the smuggler they'd been in contact with before. They bought her a ton of drinks, and once drunk enough not to notice, used physic powers to find out what the hypercorps people looked like, how big the crate was and if they knew what was in it. The computer-skilled player then proceeded to try and track them down through the open camera network. I told him that while there are cameras everywhere, they don't store feed locally. He then tried to follow the signals to the ship server and sort of "felt out the security level". I told him there was security, but not really good one. In fact, it was a bit surprisingly low, almost inviting. The player thus decided not to hack it and instead started looking for where the hypercorp guy was at the moment.

However, I had to figure out what would happen from the casual snooping about the ship systems, and decided that there was indeed an AGI informorph keeping track of security, that would immediately look into whoever was snooping about their systems. Since the PC was also an AGI, and on this ship they tend to band together, and since the characters had already gotten some local rep, the mesh security guy merely contacted the character, asked what he was doing, and offered to help. Later on, after the morph-designer character had gotten in touch with her contact, the security AGI ("Track") and the PC had some more conversation, during which the character revealed they were actually looking for some secret auction of rare and expensive goods. Track then told him that if anyone knew about this, it would probably be Feofil Smirnov.

More analysis of the latest development; at this point they both had managed to get help tracking someone they suspected were going to the auction, as well as gotten a name of someone on the ship that might be connected. They had thus advanced the plot in two ways. None of this was pre-determined by me. The characters made the decision to start looking for the hypercorp guy, and also to be honest with their reasons for being there. I did decide what would be the outcome of these actions, taking into account the set-up of the ship and the fact that they'd already managed to get reputation there (thus being on the in-list). So, it can hardly qualify as a railroad, since I had no idea the characters would choose this procedure, nor had I decided on some list that "if they do X it will lead to Y clue". Was it random? Again, apart from the skill check rolls, not really. It followed quite logically from how the world was set up. Did it make sense? Yes, clearly. The players felt it made lots of sense too. Does it qualify as a random mess? I don't think so, and my players don't think so.

I could go on, but unfortunately this has already taken me far too long to write, and I need to clean my apartment before my guests arrive. In conclusion though, plots can be advanced without railroading and still make sense.

Unless, of course, you use the term railroading to be synonymous with "GM makes a decision". In that case, you're alone in this, and you need to change your definition if you want to be able to communicate with others.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-12, 08:48 AM
Unless your game world is random and makes no sense, you have to have a railroad plot. If it's not linear, it's just a random mess.


That's a very... interesting false dichotomy.

It almost reads as if someone were attempting to redefine the terms so that when others call their approach to GMing "railroading", the badness has been defined right out of the term.

2D8HP
2016-11-12, 08:58 AM
It almost reads as if somewhere were attempting to redefine the terms so that when someone calls their approach to GMing "railroading", the badness has been defined right out of the term.Not unlike my approach to GM'ing being re-defined as "narrativist" or "story based", when really it's just my not remembering the rules due to senility.
:wink:

:tongue:


:

Darth Ultron
2016-11-13, 12:58 AM
That's a very... interesting false dichotomy.

It almost reads as if someone were attempting to redefine the terms so that when others call their approach to GMing "railroading", the badness has been defined right out of the term.

Well, of course your seeing ''railroad'' as a bad word. And even more so you do the act of ''railroading'', but then don't call it that and say you don't do it. Railroading is not a bad word, any more then optimizing is for example, but it can be used by a jerk DM in a bad way or a jerk player in a bad way. You'd never say ''all optimizer are roll players that don't want to role play'', right? But you'd say ''all railroading is bad''.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-11-13, 01:18 AM
I think it would be fun and helpful if you, Darth Ultron, were to describe to us, in at least some detail, how one of your plots goes.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-13, 03:27 AM
I think it would be fun and helpful if you, Darth Ultron, were to describe to us, in at least some detail, how one of your plots goes.

So Back Ground:
The elf kingdom and orc kingdom are at war. The PC's start out as mercenaries, all of races other then elf, dwarf and orc, hired by the orcs, first as nameless arrow stoppers, but later as an 'a-team'. The PC are 'evil' on their character sheets, but they act '21st century good' anyway. Then an elven princess comes to them and asks for help as the elves are loosing the war. She offers a good bribe of a wish each and deal and the PC's agree to help. Her plan is to get the so far neutral dwarves involved in the war. She is not sure how to do that....

The Current Adventure Starts:
So they need a way to get the dwarves on the elf side. They come up with the plan of ''kidnap the dwarven princess'' (they almost ''kidnapped the elven princess'' when they first met and plan to turn her over to the orcs...but decided not to). They head back to the orcs and suggest they do the plan(not mentioning the elven princess part) and the orcs agree and support them. So they had over to dwarven lands. They offer their services to the dwarves as an 'a-team' and quick earn some fame..while still ''working'' for the orcs(and elves) and really playing the middle. It's a big juggling act full of politics, role playing, combat and warfare. They hope to attract the attention of the dwarf king and get invited to the royal hold.

Now
The Pc's have just found a kenku with a message from the elf king to the dwarf trade guild with a plan to end the war: have the elves surrender and accept orc rule...if they can get the dwarf king to step in and be ''peace keeper'' to make sure the orcs don't slaughter the elves. Note the elf king does not know about the princesses PC plot, it's unknown if she knows what the king is up too. The Pc's want the elves to win and are thinking about somehow getting this information to the dwarf king(they know the guild and king are not working together). The last game was avoiding and fighting trade guild thugs, elf assassins (from princess number two), orc thieves and recapturing that kenku that has escaped from them twice....

Plot
I know the full big plot (the war) and the medium plots(the politics) and as the Pc's are not demi gods they can't have any real effect on them. The small plots (the immediate ones in front of the Pcs) have a basic timeline and set events, with a couple ''what ifs'' if the Pcs attempt to change something. I have paragraphs about each NPC and lots of notes and pre made encounters. Mostly things just happen around and to the Pcs. The elven assassin encounter happened in the woods, as soon as the Pc's left town after the kenku(the first time he escaped). A jerk player would say ''the kenku escaped and ran right to the elven assassin encounter...railroad!'', for example. The sandboxy person would say ''Um the kenku went north towards the capital on the road and that is where the elves were hiding as it's the main road'' in the improve or react to players or whatever way they say. I simply say ''everything is railroaded as there is a complex plot'' and ''I want the game to be fun and interesting and active''.

Is that enough detail?

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-13, 09:16 AM
Well, of course your seeing ''railroad'' as a bad word. And even more so you do the act of ''railroading'', but then don't call it that and say you don't do it. Railroading is not a bad word, any more then optimizing is for example, but it can be used by a jerk DM in a bad way or a jerk player in a bad way. You'd never say ''all optimizer are roll players that don't want to role play'', right? But you'd say ''all railroading is bad''.

Take the number of gamers who have ever played.

Subtract 1 for you.

Divide (number of gamers minus Darth Ultron) by (number of gamers).

The figure you get will be the percentage of gamers using "railroad" to mean "the DM shoves his pre-planned course of events down the players throats, and the players can only proceed by going along with that planned course of events".

"1" is the number of people who use "railroad" to mean "the game is not 100% random and unstructured, and has no prep work done at all, and everything is pure chaos".

Segev
2016-11-13, 11:31 AM
It doesn't sound like you're running a railroad, Darth_Ultron, unless you told them "no, you cant kidnap the elf princess," rather than them deciding not to. If you could have run with it whatever choice they made, you are, by definition, not running a railroad.

Railroads constrain choices to the point that the players MUST follow the tracks.

Cluedrew
2016-11-13, 07:06 PM
You'd never say ''all optimizer are roll players that don't want to role play'', right? But you'd say ''all railroading is bad''.That's because of what me mean. When I say railroading I mean forcing the plot to progress in a certain way despite other players not wanting it to go that way. It is by definition a problem, so a similar word would be "problem", railroading is not like optimization where it can be good or bad, it is a problem.

No I am not talking about everyone agreeing to follow a particular path. I am not taking about the GM incentivising certain decisions or merely guiding the direction. I am not talking about planning ahead or compromising on the contents of the game or throwing obstacles in the paths of players.

I am talking about railroading, which is different from (although can include) all of those things.

That is what I mean, and it seems to be closer to what most people mean when they say railroading than "GM having any influence on the game".

Darth Ultron
2016-11-13, 08:14 PM
It doesn't sound like you're running a railroad, Darth_Ultron, unless you told them "no, you cant kidnap the elf princess," rather than them deciding not to. If you could have run with it whatever choice they made, you are, by definition, not running a railroad.

Railroads constrain choices to the point that the players MUST follow the tracks.

As I have said, your talking about the Jerk DM Railroad. The same way the bad optimizers that just want to cheat and roll play are jerks. But in both cases not all railroading and optimization is bad, just because of a few jerks.


That's because of what me mean. When I say railroading I mean forcing the plot to progress in a certain way despite other players not wanting it to go that way. It is by definition a problem, so a similar word would be "problem", railroading is not like optimization where it can be good or bad, it is a problem.

This gets back to the core problem. You can't have a plot or ''linear adventure'' that makes sense and is not random without railroading. Worse, it's hard to have a good game without railroading....though it does depend on what you think is fun. If you just want to randomly roll dice for a couple hours, you can do that with no railroading.

Unless the characters in a game are demi gods, they generally can't ''stop or alter a plot'', assuming your game world makes common sense. So the plot will often ''not go the way the players want''. It's not to say the players can never change anything...they can in small limited ways. But that is kinda the whole point of the game is the players ''fighting'' along the plot and hoping to change it...just a bit. And if the players could really change things with a d20 roll the game would be pointless.

Cluedrew
2016-11-13, 08:57 PM
This gets back to the core problem. You can't have a plot or ''linear adventure'' that makes sense and is not random without railroading.All you have to do stop being railroading is to get player buy in. In other words if they want the "plot or linear adventure" then it is not a railroad.


If you just want to randomly roll dice for a couple hours, you can do that with no railroading.Depends on what you mean by random. If you mean "not determined ahead of time like a movie script" then yes, randomly rolling dice for a dozen hours has produced some of the best games I have ever played.

And I'm starting to go piecemeal. Let me skip to the main point. When we (I'm not exactly sure how big 'we' is but you are the only person who I know doesn't fall into that group) say railroading we are referring to what you mean by bad railroading. But put the other way when you say railroading you mean railroading and an incredibly broad group of other things. And unless you have a very strong argument as to why we should change our internal definitions, you should probably keep that in mind. (Which is not to say it is one way, I have tried to understand your definitions.)

... Yeah that is my main point. That and the first point. I'll skip the other asides.

Chauncymancer
2016-11-14, 03:07 AM
There was previously coined a term, Illusionism, such that Illusionism was the-thing-you-are-doing-when-you-railroad, and Railroading was the-thing-you-are-doing-in-Illusionism-but-the-players-don't-want-it-and-you're-doing-it-anyway.
(Fun fact: Railroading actually got its start as a RPG euphemism because Railroading used to be a more generally used term meaning "to force someone to do something without their consent".)

oxybe
2016-11-14, 05:42 AM
Darth Ultron, what would you do in this situation:

You, the GM have just presented a potential quest hook to the party: Go in the neighbouring valley and rescue the captive princess before the dragon eats her during the full moon as part of a ceremony.

The players, after discussing, decide to decline that offer of employment. "Our characters don't really care much for the royalty and assaulting a dragon in it's lair is above our pay grade, quite honestly. There is taking acceptable and calculated risks and that dragon falls under neither conceits of acceptable risk or a calculated one" one of the players relays to you, the GM.

In character, they then respectfully decline the questgiver: their current skillset is not the one you should be looking for when it comes to hunting and killing a dragon and might further endanger the princess by giving the dragon an early warning.

Later, at their inn/cottage/lair/starbucks, they then begin discussing their next plans on what they would like to do: As the paladin is wanting to start looking for the materials and smith needed to get himself a suit of mythril fullplate, the barbarian gets it in his head now for a big adamantine greataxe. the wizard would like to increase the quality of his tools, and he's been thinking of getting a magical crystal ball for a while now, while the rogue would like to see if there's anyone in the area who can take the ironwood door they looted a while back (adventurers will be adventurers) and use it as material for a new crossbow.

So what would you do as gm: The party has declined your hook and are discussing among themselves what they are interested in doing (or at least look into the possibilities of doing) as a group... what do?

2D8HP
2016-11-14, 08:04 AM
The players.....
......In character.....
........at their inn/cottage/lair/starbucks, I've been using The Green Dragon Inn

100 years ago the sorcerer Zenopus built a tower on the low hills overlooking Portown. The tower was close to the sea cliffs west of the town and, appropriately, next door to the graveyard.
Rumor has it that the magician made extensive cellars and tunnels underneath the tower. The town is located on the ruins of a much older city of doubtful history and Zenopus was said to excavate in his cellars in search of ancient treasures.

Fifty years ago, on a cold wintry night, the wizard's tower was suddenly engulfed in green flame. Several of his human servants escaped the holocaust, saying their rnaster had been destroyed by some powerful force he had unleashed in the depths of the tower.
Needless to say the tower stood vacant fora while afterthis, but then the neighbors and the night watchmen comploined that ghostly blue lights appeared in the windows at night, that ghastly screams could be heard emanating from the tower ot all hours, and goblin figures could be seen dancina on the tower roof in the moonlight. Finally the authorities had a catapult rolled through the streets of the town and the tower was battered to rubble. This stopped the hauntings but the townsfolk continue to shun the ruins. The entrance to the old dungeons can be easily located as a flight of broad stone steps leading down into darkness, but the few adventurous souls who hove descended into crypts below the ruin have either reported only empty stone corridors or have failed to return at all.
Other magic-users have moved into the town but the site of the old tower remains abandoned.
Whispered tales are told of fabulous treasure and unspeakable monsters in the underground passages below the hilltop, and the story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of the older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.
Portown is a small but busy city 'linking the caravan routes from the south to the merchscant ships that dare the pirate-infested waters of the Northern Sea. Humans and non-humans from all over the globe meet here.
At he Green Dragon Inn, the players of the game gather their characters for an assault on the fabulous passages beneath the ruined Wizard's tower.

:biggrin:

None better for me, even after 38 years!
I think that after 38 years, it's time to give the tavern keeper a surname of "Starbuck".

Not a mood breaker at all!

:biggrin:

hifidelity2
2016-11-14, 08:19 AM
Darth Ultron, what would you do in this situation:

You, the GM have just presented a potential quest hook to the party: Go in the neighbouring valley and rescue the captive princess before the dragon eats her during the full moon as part of a ceremony.

The players, after discussing, decide to decline that offer of employment. "Our characters don't really care much for the royalty and assaulting a dragon in it's lair is above our pay grade, quite honestly. There is taking acceptable and calculated risks and that dragon falls under neither conceits of acceptable risk or a calculated one" one of the players relays to you, the GM.

In character, they then respectfully decline the questgiver: their current skillset is not the one you should be looking for when it comes to hunting and killing a dragon and might further endanger the princess by giving the dragon an early warning.

Later, at their inn/cottage/lair/starbucks, they then begin discussing their next plans on what they would like to do: As the paladin is wanting to start looking for the materials and smith needed to get himself a suit of mythril fullplate, the barbarian gets it in his head now for a big adamantine greataxe. the wizard would like to increase the quality of his tools, and he's been thinking of getting a magical crystal ball for a while now, while the rogue would like to see if there's anyone in the area who can take the ironwood door they looted a while back (adventurers will be adventurers) and use it as material for a new crossbow.

So what would you do as gm: The party has declined your hook and are discussing among themselves what they are interested in doing (or at least look into the possibilities of doing) as a group... what do?

For me I have no issues in the party turning down the hook

Of course

- After some investigation they find that the dragon has the biggest horde of the things they want. Naturally when they we asked to rescue said princess they were offered some help (Dragon slaying sword maybe). By turning down the quest they will make the task harder
- The ignore dragon quest but it has heard that they have been hired to kill it and so become a major pain for them as it turns up at just the wrong time. Of course I would allow them to put the record straight
- The king(dom) that wanted to hire them is now annoyed with them – enough to banish them, tax them, generally make their life more difficult
or
- Accept it and start writing plots for the items needed

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-14, 08:41 AM
So what would you do as gm: The party has declined your hook and are discussing among themselves what they are interested in doing (or at least look into the possibilities of doing) as a group... what do?

This is definitely an awkward situation. Generally, a DM doesn't have a backup adventure planned, though some occasionally do.

If I were in such a situation, I would improvise the downtime the best I could for a while and then eventually simply confess that the Dragon's Lair was my only adventure hook I had planned, and if I didn't feel comfortable winging it just admit that I goofed up expecting their characters to go there.

I would then spend the rest of the time discussing with the players why they felt that their characters weren't the type capable of taking down the dragon, or I would point out how the request was to rescue the princess, not kill the dragon. After that, talk about what sorts of adventures they as players and as characters would expect.

There is a certain degree of trust between player and GM. There should be an understanding that the GM is going to throw a hook and the players should expect to run towards it. This might mean bending your character a little for the sake of story, but it is a GM's responsibility to make sure the hook would appeal to the characters given.

I would be a bit disappointed as a GM for players to outright dismiss an adventure and plot hook of course, and if the players rejected or ignored a main plot hook more than once, I would consider asking the players if they would be more interested in a different game since this one clearly wasn't working for them.

This boils down to player/GM communication

Segev
2016-11-14, 09:17 AM
As I have said, your talking about the Jerk DM Railroad. The same way the bad optimizers that just want to cheat and roll play are jerks. But in both cases not all railroading and optimization is bad, just because of a few jerks. Thing is, you don't get to re-define the term "railroad" to be broader than that. Railroads require rails. If your plot isn't on rails, then it isn't a railroad.

Here, Cluedrew put it well:
When we (I'm not exactly sure how big 'we' is but you are the only person who I know doesn't fall into that group) say railroading we are referring to what you mean by bad railroading. But put the other way when you say railroading you mean railroading and an incredibly broad group of other things. And unless you have a very strong argument as to why we should change our internal definitions, you should probably keep that in mind. (Which is not to say it is one way, I have tried to understand your definitions.)

So instead of constantly trying to argue that everybody who says "railroading is bad" is wrong and biased and mean and doesn't know what they're talking about (or are implied to be jerk players who just want to ruin your game), you would get a lot more mileage out of accepting the definition as it's used colloquially. (It happens to be correct, in this case, but even if you disagree about the "correct" definition of "railroading," you can at least agree to use the definition common to those with whom you're conversing.) So if you accept that, when people decry "railroading," they're talking about what you term "jerk DM railroading," you'll be on the same page and not feel like what you consider good gaming demonized.

Meanwhile, if you cease to call anything that isn't "railroading" "playing randomly," you'll get much less resistance, as well.

You are, essentially, saying that anybody who complains about spicy food wants wet cardboard and nothing else. Because any flavor at all a "jerk eater" will claim is "spicy." And then you go on to claim that, therefore, everybody actually likes spicy food because everybody likes food to taste better than wet cardboard, and everybody whining about spicy food is just a jerk trying to ruin your efforts to make a good meal. Never mind that "spicy," to most people, means "hot" in the sense that it has some capsasin-like burn to its flavor. (Whether actual capsasin is present or not.)



Unless the characters in a game are demi gods, they generally can't ''stop or alter a plot'', assuming your game world makes common sense. So the plot will often ''not go the way the players want''. It's not to say the players can never change anything...they can in small limited ways. But that is kinda the whole point of the game is the players ''fighting'' along the plot and hoping to change it...just a bit. And if the players could really change things with a d20 roll the game would be pointless.So... If the conniving second son hires the PCs to assassinate his father and his older brother, the PCs can't change the plot from "evil second son rises to the throne" by their choice to...


...refuse the mission?
...accept the mission?
...accept the mission and rat out the second son instead of fulfilling it?
...refuse the mission and tell on the second son?
...killing the second son right then and there for his gall in asking a party that considers itself CG to do such a terrible thing?


Because each of those choices seems like it would lead to a different plot, to me.


The PCs don't need to be ungodly powerful to change the plot. They just need to be able to make meaningful choices that can alter what other NPCs' options are.

2D8HP
2016-11-14, 11:54 AM
:sigh:

Railroad =
Being captured and enslaved and forced to fight in a gladiatorial arena.

:roy: :annoyed:


Not Railroad/Awesome! =

A motivation of treasure!

:haley: :biggrin:

I'd have to say that I would like to start the campaign In medias res, by the DM telling us something like:
“In the Year of the Behemoth, the Month of the Hedgehog, The Day of the Toad."

"Satisfied that they your near the goal of your quest, you think of how you had slit the interesting-looking vellum page from the ancient book on architecture that reposed in the library of the rapacious and overbearing Lord Rannarsh."

“It was a page of thick vellum, ancient and curiously greenish. Three edges were frayed and worn; the fourth showed a clean and recent cut. It was inscribed with the intricate hieroglyphs of Lankhmarian writing, done in the black ink of the squid. Reading":
"Let kings stack their treasure houses ceiling-high, and merchants burst their vaults with hoarded coin, and fools envy them. I have a treasure that outvalues theirs. A diamond as big as a man's skull. Twelve rubies each as big as the skull of a cat. Seventeen emeralds each as big as the skull of a mole. And certain rods of crystal and bars of orichalcum. Let Overlords swagger jewel-bedecked and queens load themselves with gems, and fools adore them. I have a treasure that will outlast theirs. A treasure house have I builded for it in the far southern forest, where the two hills hump double, like sleeping camels, a day's ride beyond the village of Soreev.

"A great treasure house with a high tower, fit for a king's dwelling—yet no king may dwell there. Immediately below the keystone of the chief dome my treasure lies hid, eternal as the glittering stars. It will outlast me and my name,"

100 years ago the sorcerer Zenopus built a tower on the low hills overlooking Portown. The tower was close to the sea cliffs west of the town and, appropriately, next door to the graveyard.
Rumor has it that the magician made extensive cellars and tunnels underneath the tower. The town is located on the ruins of a much older city of doubtful history and Zenopus was said to excavate in his cellars in search of ancient treasures.

Fifty years ago, on a cold wintry night, the wizard's tower was suddenly engulfed in green flame. Several of his human servants escaped the holocaust, saying their rnaster had been destroyed by some powerful force he had unleashed in the depths of the tower.
Needless to say the tower stood vacant fora while afterthis, but then the neighbors and the night watchmen comploined that ghostly blue lights appeared in the windows at night, that ghastly screams could be heard emanating from the tower ot all hours, and goblin figures could be seen dancina on the tower roof in the moonlight. Finally the authorities had a catapult rolled through the streets of the town and the tower was battered to rubble. This stopped the hauntings but the townsfolk continue to shun the ruins. The entrance to the old dungeons can be easily located as a flight of broad stone steps leading down into darkness, but the few adventurous souls who hove descended into crypts below the ruin have either reported only empty stone corridors or have failed to return at all.
Other magic-users have moved into the town but the site of the old tower remains abandoned.
Whispered tales are told of fabulous treasure and unspeakable monsters in the underground passages below the hilltop, and the story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of the older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.
Portown is a small but busy city 'linking the caravan routes from the south to the merchant ships that dare the pirate-infested waters of the Northern Sea. Humans and non-humans from all over the globe meet here.
At he Green Dragon Inn, the players of the game gather their characters for an assault on the fabulous passages beneath the ruined Wizard's tower.

:smile:



See the difference is that in the arena example the DM has dropped the PC's into a situation that is lame with their having no choice in the matter, whereas in the treasure seeking examples, the DM has dropped the PC's into a situation that is AWESOME! so of course the players would choose it.

I believe I've settled that question

:wink:

Your welcome.
"By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, you shall be avenged!"

"When do we get there?"
"Real soon!"

"Demon Dogs!"

"What is best in life?

"This goes to eleven".

"What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?"

"A shrubbery!".

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-14, 12:10 PM
It occurs to me that railroading is probably more acceptable with newer parties that have no direction as of yet.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-11-14, 03:00 PM
It occurs to me that railroading is probably more acceptable with newer parties that have no direction as of yet.

I think this would teach them bad habits. Though a good thing to do is start the game in media res with an immediate problem/challenge that they HAVE to deal with before they can strike out in their own direction.

FreddyNoNose
2016-11-14, 03:10 PM
I have never bought into the term "sandbox". It is just something people say but there isn't a clear definition AND there is a consensus on a definition. It is often used to shun/shame non-sandbox games. Oh, that game is themepark I only play sandbox as they are superior and let me choose anything I want without restriction.

Segev
2016-11-14, 04:23 PM
I have never bought into the term "sandbox". It is just something people say but there isn't a clear definition AND there is a consensus on a definition. It is often used to shun/shame non-sandbox games. Oh, that game is themepark I only play sandbox as they are superior and let me choose anything I want without restriction.

While I can see it being used to "shame" non-sandbox games, in the sense that it is generally contrasted with "railroad" which is almost invariably thought to refer to the extreme (and negative) example of its type, I don't really see much difference between "theme park" and "sandbox."

All "sandbox" really means is that the game is set up so that the players' characters drive the plot of the game. Not necessarily the plot of the setting, but of the game. As opposed to the plot of the game driving them.

There is little wrong with the plot of a game driving the PCs. Linear and branching stories are neat and can be fun. The main reason sandboxes get so touted, I think, is to use the contrast with what is wrong with railroads to try to help people pull away from those flaws by incorporating aspects of the sandbox where they're helpful.

A branching (or even linear) plot can be made non-railroad by simply having the same kind of understanding of the motive forces behind that plot that are essential in a sandbox. So that, if players balk in some fashion at the path laid out, the GM can adapt.

An adapting linear plot might veer entirely away from the GM's plans, but the GM's response is to re-map a new path forward. A sandbox game would adapt by simply changing the current situation, with the GM planning far less "forward" and far more "peripheral."

In a sandbox, the GM is very prepared for the PCs to veer off in any direction, but hasn't got long-term plans necessarily laid out. His "wasted" preparation is in all the stuff the PCs never go to.

In a linear game, the GM is very prepared to go all the way down the planned path with the players, possibly with multiple "if/then" branches based on predicted likely choices. His "wasted prep" occurs when the players abandon the path, forcing the GM to rewrite the plot.

oxybe
2016-11-14, 04:24 PM
Themepark is generally referring to a worldbuild method where you have a bunch of separate microcosms that don't interact. Think disneyworld: you've got a bunch of distinct areas, but some mascots will simply not ever wander into a different area.

Here are orcs, here are dragons, this is a fire dungeon, welcome to elf forest, etc... and the players are the only people to really go from area to area and once they've experienced it, they'll likely leave it for another and unless there's a big shakeup, you won't see the orcs mingling in dragonland.

Sandbox is generally referring to a more open experience where the players are free to go about and build and destroy things as their capabilities allows: some players bring a bucket, some bring a shovel, others a watering can, etc... and they're left to play. But as a whole the sandbox campaign is based around what the players want to do and the GM helping them reach those goals, akin to leaving a kid to play in a sandbox, the parent being there to supervise and make sure they don't hurt each other.

You can have a Themepark Sandbox... they're not mutually exclusive.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-14, 04:35 PM
"Themepark" is more from video game design, in which the players might be interacting with what looks like an open world, but it's always in a very controlled and designed way, and the world only changes in response to their actions in pre-planned ways.

Segev
2016-11-14, 04:44 PM
Themepark is generally referring to a worldbuild method where you have a bunch of separate microcosms that don't interact. Think disneyworld: you've got a bunch of distinct areas, but some mascots will simply not ever wander into a different area.

Huh. I hadn't heard that definition before. I...really haven't seen games run like that, because the isolation required between parts of the world seems off-kilter when the PCs can go between them. But I suppose in a sufficiently "explorer" focused game...


"Themepark" is more from video game design, in which the players might be interacting with what looks like an open world, but it's always in a very controlled and designed way, and the world only changes in response to their actions in pre-planned ways.

That makes a little more sense, and the isolation is masked by having the plots be pretty vertical once inside it with planned intersection points. Okay, I see it here. Thanks for the clarification.

HidesHisEyes
2016-11-15, 03:17 AM
I feel like I'm in the odd position of at least in part agreeing with both Max and Darth (or at least with what I think their trying to say).

I also don't think a completely "player-led game is an RPG at all, it's a story-telling game which is not the same thing! And a completely GM-led game is a fiction recitation (an authors reading) also not the same thing!

I've done the story-telling game thing where you take turns adding to the narrative of what the author/player said before, and I've been in the audience for book readings, and while those activities can be fun, if I'm invited to play a FRPG, I'm disappointed if I find that it won't be one.

If I'm a player I except to experience a little bit of exploring a fantastic world. I don't expect to play a game in which I'm equally expected to make up the world, which interferes with my perception of exploring one. I'm also disappointed to find that the "FRPG" I've been to "play" is instead an invitation to be in the audience of an author's story recitation.

As GM I want to do some Worldbuilding, and than be surprised by what happens in the scenes I've set up, if I didn't want to be surprised I'd just write a story! And I absolutely would not want to be a GM in which my role is mostly to hold a stop watch.

It may just be my lack of imagination, but extremely player-led, and completely GM-led RPG's just don't seem that fun to me, and hardly RPG's at all.

Fun is in the balance.

I completely agree. by the way I hope you've found a good game to take part in after your long-awaited return to RPGs!

I think that what Darth Ultron is doing when he insists there's no such thing as a true sandbox, or truly player-led game, is describing what Angry GM calls "the ******* around game". That is, a game where no one has any idea what they want to do, the GM has maybe a map and a vague idea of what's in each location and the players have little idea of who their characters are or what they want to do. I agree that this kind of game always either ends or resolves into a different type of game very quickly since no one (or almost no one, I guess, it takes all sorts) actually enjoys it. But it's not what I meant by "player-led game". The GM is always going to be designing things and providing challenges, whether in advance or on the fly. My distinction with GM-led vs player-led was about who provides the OBJECTIVES. In the GM-led game the GM says "this is your mission", whereas in the player-led game the players say "this is what we'd like to do". In either case the GM designs the specifics, but it's a significant decision because a lot of players like to feel that they have agency in the actual direction of the plot, not just how the characters go about resolving each plot point (fight the guard or pay him off, cast sleep or cast fireball, intimidate or deceive etc.)

For our purposes "plot" just means the sequence of stuff that ends up happening, whether it was planned ahead of time by the GM, published in a book by Paizo or emerged as a result of the decisions made by players. The crucial question is who is providing the objectives.

I do think Darth is right to say in player-led games the players effectively choose an objective from a list of options. In a skilfully run game the list is constantly changing in response to the players' actions, but I am extremely sceptical of the idea that anyone can provide a truly organic game world without solidifying bits of it into tangible options. And that's perfectly acceptable to me. In fact my preferred system these days is for the GM to present a list of fairly tangible options over WhatsApp or something after wach session (or each objective achieved), the players choose in advance of the next session, then the GM prepares something to actually play based on that choice. It sounds like Darth Ultron's "sandboxes are actually railroads" model but it's not, because as a player I not only chose the adventure but did the stuff that led to the adventure being available to choose in the first place. That's agency, as I would define it.

Lorsa
2016-11-15, 04:21 AM
As I have said, your talking about the Jerk DM Railroad. The same way the bad optimizers that just want to cheat and roll play are jerks. But in both cases not all railroading and optimization is bad, just because of a few jerks.

While railroading can come in many shapes or forms, in various strengths and be directed towards different parts of the game, in general, railroading is exactly that; the jerk DM railraod. Attempting to define it any other way without some measure of scale or more complex definitions just makes it loose its usefulness as a word.

Words are used to point to a concept. So when people say "I don't want beef" you can avoid cooking beef instead of replying "all food that is not beans is beef". Beef is a specific type of food, just as railroading is a specific type of game.



This gets back to the core problem. You can't have a plot or ''linear adventure'' that makes sense and is not random without railroading. Worse, it's hard to have a good game without railroading....though it does depend on what you think is fun. If you just want to randomly roll dice for a couple hours, you can do that with no railroading.

In a way, I do agree with you. It is impossible to have a truly linear adventure without some measure of railroading. However, I would argue that linear, railroaded adventures typically make LESS sense than the non-railroaded, open-ended adventures. The act of railroading usually breaks verisimilitude into little pieces as the characters' actions are no longer given their logical outcome.

Therefore, it is hard to have a good game WITH railroading (since railroading inevitably brings us to the "jerk DM railroad").

In your case, for your game, if you would have allowed the characters to either kill or kidnap the elf princess and have it mean a kidnapped or dead princess, then it is not railroading. Nor is it a true linear adventure, as those usually hinges on "the princess comes and gives the PCs a quest which they follow".



Unless the characters in a game are demi gods, they generally can't ''stop or alter a plot'', assuming your game world makes common sense. So the plot will often ''not go the way the players want''. It's not to say the players can never change anything...they can in small limited ways. But that is kinda the whole point of the game is the players ''fighting'' along the plot and hoping to change it...just a bit. And if the players could really change things with a d20 roll the game would be pointless.

Well, a d20 roll could kill an elf princess. Wouldn't that change the plot? Seems like it should.

Why wouldn't characters be able to alter a plot? That must depend on what the plot is right? Not to mention that the only "plot" that really matters in a RPG is whatever happens to the PCs. That they should be able to change at a very drastic level. Unless the game is railroaded.

I mean, if the characters decides to side with the Orcs or the Elves will have drastic (or should have drastic) consequences for their own lives and experiences, even if it turns out not to alter the war between the races in any way.

Lorsa
2016-11-15, 07:26 AM
I think that what Darth Ultron is doing when he insists there's no such thing as a true sandbox, or truly player-led game, is describing what Angry GM calls "the ******* around game". That is, a game where no one has any idea what they want to do, the GM has maybe a map and a vague idea of what's in each location and the players have little idea of who their characters are or what they want to do. I agree that this kind of game always either ends or resolves into a different type of game very quickly since no one (or almost no one, I guess, it takes all sorts) actually enjoys it. But it's not what I meant by "player-led game". The GM is always going to be designing things and providing challenges, whether in advance or on the fly. My distinction with GM-led vs player-led was about who provides the OBJECTIVES. In the GM-led game the GM says "this is your mission", whereas in the player-led game the players say "this is what we'd like to do". In either case the GM designs the specifics, but it's a significant decision because a lot of players like to feel that they have agency in the actual direction of the plot, not just how the characters go about resolving each plot point (fight the guard or pay him off, cast sleep or cast fireball, intimidate or deceive etc.)

For our purposes "plot" just means the sequence of stuff that ends up happening, whether it was planned ahead of time by the GM, published in a book by Paizo or emerged as a result of the decisions made by players. The crucial question is who is providing the objectives.

The crucial question to the original post's definition of player-led vs. GM.led games seems to definitely be who is providing the objectives.

The matter of making players feel a sense of agency is more complex though. A game where you can choose which railroad to go to isn't going to be much better than the one where you are forced on just the one rail.

This is why I think railroading needs to be broken up into smaller pieces, in order to more accurately model what's going on at a RPG table. In this way, what you arrive with is multiple axes, each of which can tilt in the "player-controlled" or "GM-controlled" direction. For some of them, there is a side too far to the GM-side where agency is lost, and for others there is a side too far to the player-side where the game becomes unstructured and more like "****ing around".

As an example of what I mean, you have already defined two axes:

"Who picks the adventure/objective" and "Who decides how individual problems/situations are resolved".

Another axis would be "Who controls scene transitions; when/where they start, when they end and in which order they occur". This is one I feel is most difficult to get a good balance of. Too heavy GM control will make the game feel railroad-y even if there is agency with choosing objectives and problem solutions. Too little GM control on the other hand, will easily make the game feel unstructured and messy.

I am not sure how to fit the "ability to affect the world/the plot". Ideally it should be incorporated into the "who decides how problems are resolved" axis, but maybe it isn't fully. More thinking is probably required for this.

There could be a problem when a GM only considers one of the axes as "railroading", and thus doesn't notice or realize that they are in fact railroading the game even though they let players pick their own objectives. Since there are at least 3+ ways a GM can railroad players, full agency doesn't show until all of them have been addressed. Some players will feel that one axis is more important than another, but they're all there to juggle.

In general, I think the best games are those where the GM provides a few options, but allows players to choose anything, even options not provided. Sort of like "here are a few objectives, but if you have other ideas they are welcome as well" and "these are a few ways to approach this problem, but go ahead and solve it however you like". In this way, the GM offers direction, but doesn't force anything on the players.

As for linear adventures, "if - then" branching statements and player agency, I think that if you try to include player agency by creating a bunch of "if - then" branching points, at some point you will reach so many "if - then" that the design becomes too cumbersome. At that point, you can either backtrack on your freedom, or realize that it's better simply to allow for an infinite number of "if" choices, but wait with the decision of "then" until the time the players have actually chosen the "if". This way, you will allow for maximum player agency, as you don't limit their choices in any way. It does require you to make reactive decisions though, but whenever you make the decision (before as an "if - then" or afterwards as only "then"), the GM has to make a decision. But placing the decision at the appropriate time can make a huge difference for the game and the experienced player agency.

Quertus
2016-11-15, 08:40 AM
I think this would teach them bad habits. Though a good thing to do is start the game in media res with an immediate problem/challenge that they HAVE to deal with before they can strike out in their own direction.

I only recently learned that technique, and I need to use it more often. If helps cement the team, as well as forcing me away from my infinite buildup trap.

HidesHisEyes
2016-11-15, 12:19 PM
There is a certain degree of trust between player and GM. There should be an understanding that the GM is going to throw a hook and the players should expect to run towards it. This might mean bending your character a little for the sake of story, but it is a GM's responsibility to make sure the hook would appeal to the characters ... This boils down to player/GM communication.

Absolutely. But I also think it's totally acceptable for the GM to say at the start "this is the kind of game I want to run, please bear this in mind both when you make your characters and as you play". The GM setting some limits is perfectly reasonable, I think, since it's the GM who does the work to make the game happen at all. And the GM should be having fun too. I don't have any time at all for the idea that the GM should bend over backwards to cater to the players' every whim. And don't forget that different GMs are good at different things; if players tell me they want nothing but HBO-style court intrigue then I'll tell them they should find a different GM because I'm not at all confident I could deliver a decent game of that kind (and also I wouldn't enjoy it).

2D8HP
2016-11-15, 12:58 PM
I completely agree. by the way I hope you've found a good game to take part in after your long-awaited return to RPGs!Wow that's one one the nicest thing that anyone's ever written me.
:smile:
Thanks!

I think that what Darth Ultron is doing when he insists there's no such thing as a true sandbox, or truly player-led game, is describing what Angry GM calls "the ******* around game"I'd have to say that the most player-led "role-playing.game" I ever tried to "play" (not a "sandbox", more like an "empty room") was even more anti-awesome than the lamest railroad I was a passenger on (arena fights, with healing provided).
Having no perception of PC agency while tiresome, isn't as bad as a DM who phones in a setting (a "Notables" dinner party" with mostly mute NPC's) and has the players do competative soliloquies.

I'd have to say that the best adventures start with an engaged DM, and proceed with imaginative players.

Without the DM providing a good start, and allowing room for PC shenanigans, the game is usually a dud.

For an "empty room" to be fun, the players have to be unusually witty, and for an "express-line railroad" to be fun the DM needs to spin a very good yarn.

In general I recommend a GM-led game at the start, player-led middle, and a balanced conclusion, but YMMV..

Darth Ultron
2016-11-16, 05:55 PM
While railroading can come in many shapes or forms, in various strengths and be directed towards different parts of the game, in general, railroading is exactly that; the jerk DM railraod. Attempting to define it any other way without some measure of scale or more complex definitions just makes it loose its usefulness as a word.

My counter would be anyone optimizing is a jerk that does not want to role play at all. Some how I think you will disagree that *all* optimizer are jerks, right?



Therefore, it is hard to have a good game WITH railroading (since railroading inevitably brings us to the "jerk DM railroad").

It is hard to have a good game without a railroad, unless your just going to say ''any game I'd played in is a good game''.

Solaris
2016-11-16, 09:12 PM
My counter would be anyone optimizing is a jerk that does not want to role play at all. Some how I think you will disagree that *all* optimizer are jerks, right?

I direct you to the Stormwind Fallacy. Optimization and roleplaying are not opposed to one another.


It is hard to have a good game without a railroad, unless your just going to say ''any game I'd played in is a good game''.

By definition, a railroad is not a good game.
If you're in a good game, it cannot be a railroad.
If you define a good game as a railroad, you are misusing the term.
Period.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-17, 07:26 AM
I direct you to the Stormwind Fallacy. Optimization and roleplaying are not opposed to one another.

.

Exactly my point. If ALL railroading is bad, then ALL optimization is bad. See it works both ways.




By definition, a railroad is not a good game.
If you're in a good game, it cannot be a railroad.
If you define a good game as a railroad, you are misusing the term.
Period.

Ok, then that means all optimizers only want to roll play combat, right?

See, you can't really make a single word ''always bad'', with only a few exceptions. It's like saying ''fire is bad as it burns you'', but fire is not ''always bad''.

Cluedrew
2016-11-17, 07:55 AM
Exactly my point. If ALL railroading is bad, then ALL optimization is bad. See it works both ways.But optimising is not the opposite of a railroad. Or vice versa. Optimization has to do with the power-level of a game, railroading has to do with the advancement of the plot.


See, you can't really make a single word ''always bad'', with only a few exceptions. It's like saying ''fire is bad as it burns you'', but fire is not ''always bad''.Rape?

OldTrees1
2016-11-17, 11:34 AM
Exactly my point. If ALL railroading is bad, then ALL optimization is bad. See it works both ways.

Ok, then that means all optimizers only want to roll play combat, right?

See, you can't really make a single word ''always bad'', with only a few exceptions. It's like saying ''fire is bad as it burns you'', but fire is not ''always bad''.

Darth Ultron, words do not have inherent meaning. They only mean the meaning they are being used to convey. If you wish to communicate then you either need to use the common meaning(that is an "always bad" meaning), use another word, or constantly follow your usage with the abnormal meaning you are using.

A berry by any other name would smell as sweet, but when I call it "berry" rather than "rose" I fail to communicate.

Solaris
2016-11-17, 11:52 AM
Exactly my point. If ALL railroading is bad, then ALL optimization is bad. See it works both ways.

No. That is a non sequitur. Try again. You completely missed the point.


Ok, then that means all optimizers only want to roll play combat, right?

See, you can't really make a single word ''always bad'', with only a few exceptions. It's like saying ''fire is bad as it burns you'', but fire is not ''always bad''.

Once again, a non sequitur because you missed the point.

The argument here is particularly hilarious, because it's pretty obvious you're either making stuff up simply to continue the argument or do not speak English. Given the language we're having this conversation in...

Segev
2016-11-17, 12:31 PM
The problem, Darth_Ultron, is that you're not using "railroad" correctly. A fully-built town with a grid of roadways and the freedom to enter, leave, or climb on the buildings is not equivalent to a set of rails which you cannot stop following until the train car stops.

It doesn't matter how well thought out the town is, if you can go anywhere in it and do anything physically possible with it, it is not a railroad. Even if the GM has it fleshed out enough to move an evolving plot forward based on what the players do and do not do.


The things you call non-jerk-DM railroads are not railroads, by the definition of a railroad. Nothing in the definition of "optimization" has a thing to do with good or bad RP.

Your analogy fails because you're claiming that, since not all blackbirds are crows, we can't claim that all oranges are fruit.

thirdkingdom
2016-11-17, 01:19 PM
I'm not quite sure if he just really doesn't get it or this is some elaborate troll.

Segev
2016-11-17, 01:26 PM
I'm not quite sure if he just really doesn't get it or this is some elaborate troll.

I hypothesize that he's really just clinging very hard to an erroneous definition of "railroad." Further speculation on his motives - conscious or un- - for doing so is probably against some forum rules, and certainly is not constructive.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-17, 05:51 PM
But optimising is not the opposite of a railroad. Or vice versa. Optimization has to do with the power-level of a game, railroading has to do with the advancement of the plot.


Right, the opsite of a railroad is a sandbox. So you want to say all sandbox type games are bad? ok...


the argument here is particularly hilarious, because it's pretty obvious you're either making stuff up simply to continue the argument or do not speak English. Given the language we're having this conversation in...

Ok....your making stuff up too, so what?


The problem, Darth_Ultron, is that you're not using "railroad" correctly.

Well, for example, I place the ''elven archer assassins'' on the main road leading North out of town. I provide a good two or three reasons for the players to pick that way. But if they don't pick that way...they will find rails leading them back. It won't be like a dumb video game where they ''can't walk past some trees'', but they will still end up on that north road. In the game, for example, that is the way the keknu ran when he escaped. Now the DM that uses the ''game world reacts'' defense would say the kingdoms capital was down that main north road, so it makes a good spot to set up an ambush there and the kenku was trying to get to the capital all along and they would try to smell like roses and say ''see, I'm a good DM, I never railroad, etc.'' Now I say it's a railroad and it was good....the elven assassins was a fun encounter for everyone.





The things you call non-jerk-DM railroads are not railroads, by the definition of a railroad. Nothing in the definition of "optimization" has a thing to do with good or bad RP.


The core idea of optimization as a play style is that of deriving enjoyment from choosing and benefiting from the game mechanical options that best optimize one's character's performance for some specific purpose.

This is very clearly saying that type of person just wants to roll play using the dice and mechanical rules...and does not want to role play at all. See ''role play'' in the definition of optimization: case closed.

But....everyone will say it's not true just as they don't want it to be....

Thrudd
2016-11-17, 06:16 PM
I hypothesize that he's really just clinging very hard to an erroneous definition of "railroad." Further speculation on his motives - conscious or un- - for doing so is probably against some forum rules, and certainly is not constructive.

I hypothesize he's a troll that knows people react to railroading talk. His illogic regenerates no matter how much you hack away with sensible argument.

FreddyNoNose
2016-11-17, 08:52 PM
While I can see it being used to "shame" non-sandbox games, in the sense that it is generally contrasted with "railroad" which is almost invariably thought to refer to the extreme (and negative) example of its type, I don't really see much difference between "theme park" and "sandbox."

All "sandbox" really means is that the game is set up so that the players' characters drive the plot of the game. Not necessarily the plot of the setting, but of the game. As opposed to the plot of the game driving them.

A thousand SOBs have a thousand definitions for sandbox. We do not have a Consensus.

RazorChain
2016-11-17, 10:23 PM
While I can see it being used to "shame" non-sandbox games, in the sense that it is generally contrasted with "railroad" which is almost invariably thought to refer to the extreme (and negative) example of its type, I don't really see much difference between "theme park" and "sandbox."

All "sandbox" really means is that the game is set up so that the players' characters drive the plot of the game. Not necessarily the plot of the setting, but of the game. As opposed to the plot of the game driving them.

As FreddyNoNose said people have different definitions of sandbox. I just think sandbox is the hipsters game, the new fad that gets touted a lot...the best thing since frozen yoghurt.

All I think of when someone mentions sandbox is the GM telling the players "You all start at an inn/bar." It's a recurring theme as the old gets new. Almost 30 years ago when I started gaming almost all games started like that and then the characters went out and found some things to interact with and things to kill.

Character driven game is a different beast. I never consider myself running sandbox games but character driven games I do a lot. This is where I shape the adventures/plots around the character goals, motivations and background. I don't scatter random plothooks on a map but dangle a carefully crafted one in their face or excrement happens and now they have to react.

Having a living world isn't sandbox. Sandbox or Open World are just video game terms. TTRPG always have been as open as your imagination and full of sand all the time. When I travelled from Karameikos to Sind then nobody was considering sandbox or an open world even though we were just finding trouble for loot and experience



There is little wrong with the plot of a game driving the PCs. Linear and branching stories are neat and can be fun. The main reason sandboxes get so touted, I think, is to use the contrast with what is wrong with railroads to try to help people pull away from those flaws by incorporating aspects of the sandbox where they're helpful.

A branching (or even linear) plot can be made non-railroad by simply having the same kind of understanding of the motive forces behind that plot that are essential in a sandbox. So that, if players balk in some fashion at the path laid out, the GM can adapt.

An adapting linear plot might veer entirely away from the GM's plans, but the GM's response is to re-map a new path forward. A sandbox game would adapt by simply changing the current situation, with the GM planning far less "forward" and far more "peripheral."

In a sandbox, the GM is very prepared for the PCs to veer off in any direction, but hasn't got long-term plans necessarily laid out. His "wasted" preparation is in all the stuff the PCs never go to.

In a linear game, the GM is very prepared to go all the way down the planned path with the players, possibly with multiple "if/then" branches based on predicted likely choices. His "wasted prep" occurs when the players abandon the path, forcing the GM to rewrite the plot.


Linear plot/adventure doesn't mean that there exist no world around it and that the PC's can't veer off and do other things, if they can't then it's railroading. I have never played a game where the game world ceases to exists outside a clearly defined plotline. It's just a sign of a bad GM if nothing is happening outside of his plot, if the world feels empty then it's the GM's fault.

By it's very nature TTRPG are sandboxes ALL the time unless they lack a game world.

Cluedrew
2016-11-17, 10:30 PM
Right, the opsite of a railroad is a sandbox. So you want to say all sandbox type games are bad? ok...No, I think the opposite of a railroad would be a featureless void (which is to say, too far in the other direction). But regardless, no I am not saying that all sandbox type games are bad. I'm not sure how you got that idea.

RazorChain
2016-11-17, 10:34 PM
No, I think the opposite of a railroad would be a featureless void (which is to say, too far in the other direction). But regardless, no I am not saying that all sandbox type games are bad. I'm not sure how you got that idea.

I would say the opposite of railroad are freeforming players collectively game mastering when none of them wants to game master and all of them want to play.

ComradeBear
2016-11-18, 01:03 AM
Multiple Fallacies Detected. Activating Referee. Please stand by.


Right, the opsite of a railroad is a sandbox. So you want to say all sandbox type games are bad? ok...


http://i.imgur.com/7zZ9KU4.jpg




Ok....your making stuff up too, so what?


http://i.imgur.com/4dF68N7.jpg




Well, for example, I place the ''elven archer assassins'' on the main road leading North out of town. I provide a good two or three reasons for the players to pick that way. But if they don't pick that way...they will find rails leading them back. It won't be like a dumb video game where they ''can't walk past some trees'', but they will still end up on that north road. In the game, for example, that is the way the keknu ran when he escaped. Now the DM that uses the ''game world reacts'' defense would say the kingdoms capital was down that main north road, so it makes a good spot to set up an ambush there and the kenku was trying to get to the capital all along and they would try to smell like roses and say ''see, I'm a good DM, I never railroad, etc.'' Now I say it's a railroad and it was good....the elven assassins was a fun encounter for everyone.



http://i.imgur.com/P9C93qJl.jpg




The core idea of optimization as a play style is that of deriving enjoyment from choosing and benefiting from the game mechanical options that best optimize one's character's performance for some specific purpose.

This is very clearly saying that type of person just wants to roll play using the dice and mechanical rules...and does not want to role play at all. See ''role play'' in the definition of optimization: case closed.

But....everyone will say it's not true just as they don't want it to be....


http://i.imgur.com/YLjVpBt.jpg


Thanks, Ref.

2D8HP
2016-11-18, 01:09 AM
I hypothesize he's a troll.If he was I'd imagine that he would have broken character be now.

My guess is he got burned playing in an open "empty room" setting and found the experience so boring that he decided that since "railroad" was better, if it's good it must be a railroad.

I very briefly looked at a PbP thread that he DM's, and it looked like a good game, better than "express-line railroads" and "empty room" games I've had the misfortune to experience (but I didn't look long enough to be very sure).

Why he's so passionate about re-defining "railroad" to be a term of pride puzzles me, ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT EFFORT WOULD BE BETTER SPENT RE-NAMING "RPG'S", "TABLE-TOP ADVENTURE GAMES" DAGNABBIT!

*ahem*

As I stated in an earlier post, with good story-telling (or luck) an "authors reading" (players as audience), and a "story game" (GM as somebody with a stop watch, while each player takes equal turns extending a story) can be fun, but I'd rather play a regular "RPG" or even Risk most of the time.

For fun I'm going to rank "RPG's"styles, from the most tyrannical GM, to the most dis-interested "phoning it in" GM. And also for fun I've decided to name some of the styles after Playgrounders who have written good advice, and have short names.
Since I really don't know what their actual GM styles are, and I'm goofing around,, rename the styles as you like.

Express--Line Railroad:
Hope you like the GM's voice, because it's the only one that matters, "You meet Studly McAwesome and follow around" (Bor-ing!). :sigh:

Standard Railroad: Usually the GM is using a pre-gen and just hasn't learned to improv well yet (Just OK, give the GM some slack, their new at this) :confused:

Jay R's AWESOME! Slight Railroad:
A GM inspired plot leading to a conclusion, but the PC's actions are in the players hands (Fun!). :smile:

Lorsa's EXCELLENT! Balanced game:
Not that dissimilar to Jay R's Slight Railroad, just a bit lighter touch in that they are spaces where the action slows allowing the players to improvise their own agendas (Fun!) :smile:

Yora's BADASS! Fish tank:
Competing plot "hooks" for the players to choose between (Fun!). :smile:

Sandbox:
Big setting with endless independent events and locations, such as suggested bu The Judge's Guild's "City State of the World Emperor" (Sounds good, but I have never actually seen it truly in operation, so beats me) :confused:

Empty Room:
"Yeah, your um... at the Palace,.and your PC's are like being watched by the Nobles and stuff, huh? Um, no they don't say anything, so anyway, um you guys do some spells or fight each other, or compete at soliloquies or something, OK? (Just so very LAME!) :furious:

Lorsa
2016-11-18, 02:47 AM
Exactly my point. If ALL railroading is bad, then ALL optimization is bad. See it works both ways.

This must be the worst argument in the history of arguments.

There is no way on Earth those two can be linked in such a manner.

RazorChain
2016-11-18, 04:03 AM
This must be the worst argument in the history of arguments.

There is no way on Earth those two can be linked in such a manner.

Guys....we spent 18 pages discussing the definition of railroading last time, I don't think 18 more are going to change anyones definition. Just let him define things his way. The jerk gm railroading and the vanilla railroading.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480855-The-railroading-problem-source-amp-solution&highlight=railroad

Psikerlord
2016-11-18, 07:01 AM
Well, let's borrow an example from another thread: the DM wants to run "slay the dragon", the players want to run "create dragon-hide armor". In that scenario, things are going to feel very unsatisfying unless things play out according to the player-led model.

So, IME, even in a DM-led model, the DM needs to be able to switch to the player-led model, and needs to recognize when to do so.

That having been said...

To borrow from another thread, sometimes, the players are floundering without direction. In that scenario, you need to be able to and know when to have the "man with a gun" enter the room.

So, IME, even in a player-led model, the DM needs to be able to switch to the DM-led model, and needs to recognize when to do so.

I think dogmatic adherence to either is very capable of producing anti-fun.

agree - I think th best approach is a mix of player instigated missions/side treks, and GM scenarios.

Cluedrew
2016-11-18, 07:37 AM
I would say the opposite of railroad are freeforming players collectively game mastering when none of them wants to game master and all of them want to play.I was using the amount of preplanning and control as the axis to reflect on. So I think the opposite would be something like the empty room 2D8HP described. Instead of too much pre-planning and focus on the world and background characters, there is too little.


Activating Referee.I like those, more interesting than straight text.


Just let him define things his way. The jerk gm railroading and the vanilla railroading.Yeah, but last time I managed to figure out his definition, so this time I was hoping I could explain my definition or get some insight into why he thinks its good and useful. No go on either case. He seem determined to force others along with his one true definition that other don't want to use (aka railroading).

hifidelity2
2016-11-18, 08:14 AM
I like what you have here – I think that we need some agreed terms




For fun I'm going to rank "RPG's"styles, from the most tyrannical GM, to the most dis-interested "phoning it in" GM. And also for fun I've decided to name some of the styles after Playgrounders who have written good advice, and have short names.
Since I really don't know what their actual GM styles are, and I'm goofing around,, rename the styles as you like.

Express--Line Railroad:
Hope you like the GM's voice, because it's the only one that matters, "You meet Studly McAwesome and follow around" (Bor-ing!).

Standard Railroad:
Usually the GM is using a pre-gen and just hasn't learned to improv well yet (Just OK, give the GM some slack, their new at this) :confused:

Jay R's AWESOME! Slight Railroad:
A GM inspired plot leading to a conclusion, but the PC's actions are in the players hands (Fun!). :smile:

Lorsa's EXCELLENT! Balanced game:
Not that dissimilar to Jay R's Slight Railroad, just a bit lighter touch in that they are spaces where the action slows allowing the players to improvise their own agendas (Fun!) :smile:

Yora's BADASS! Fish tank:
Competing plot "hooks" for the players to choose between (Fun!). :smile:

Sandbox:
Big setting with endless independent events and locations, such as suggested bu The Judge's Guild's "City State of the World Emperor" (Sounds good, but I have never actually seen it truly in operation, so beats me) :confused:

Empty Room:
"Yeah, your um... at the Palace,.and your PC's are like being watched by the Nobles and stuff, huh? Um, no they don't say anything, so anyway, um you guys do some spells or fight each other, or compete at soliloquies or something, OK? (Just so very LAME!) :furious:

So taking those above how about

Railroad = Express Railroad
Balanced - = Slight Railroad
Balanced = Balanced Game
Balanced + = Fish Tank
Sandbox = Sandbox / empty Room
Pre Gen Module / 1 shot = Standard railroad


For me
Pre Gen – nothing wrong with them as a intro / one off / learning tool. Would not want to do them all the time
Railroad is no fun – I have played with GM’s like this and walked away
Sandbox – again I want a plot / story. If I wanted a totally empty world I would become the GM and design one. To me its like reading a dictionary v a novel – in a dictionary all the words are there but there is nothing to enjoy

So were are down to the 3 variations of Balanced. Which one as a DM I run depends on the players (I know some prefer more DM lead narrative than others), the system and then the time I expect the game to last (from a few sessions to one that has now been running on and off with the same core players for over 20 years). Generally the sorter the expected game length the more railroady it will be

Darth Ultron
2016-11-18, 08:29 AM
For fun I'm going to rank "RPG's"styles, from the most tyrannical GM, to the most dis-interested "phoning it in" GM. And also for fun I've decided to name some of the styles after Playgrounders who have written good advice, and have short names.
Since I really don't know what their actual GM styles are, and I'm goofing around,, rename the styles as you like.


What no one for me?


Awesome Balanced Railroad of fun!: The players have as much freedom as they want to think they do when the DM controls everything in the whole game except the relatively small character actions and player choices and decisions that are little more then ripples in a small pond on a planet in an infinite multiverse. Most of the game is a railroad, but it all makes sense so the player won't see it if they don't look (''the dwarf put a goodlock on his treasure chest? Who would have thought..."). The goal is to lead(force) the players to do things that set up and pay off in structured fun for everyone.

2D8HP
2016-11-18, 08:42 AM
What no one for me?
Well.....
Ifor fun I've decided to name some of the styles after Playgrounders who have written good advice, and have short names."Darth Ultron", is not a short name.
Now if it rolled off the tongue like "2D8HP", then... oh wait...
Never mind.
:redface:

ComradeBear
2016-11-18, 08:50 AM
What no one for me?


Awesome Balanced Railroad of fun!: The players have as much freedom as they want to think they do when the DM controls everything in the whole game except the relatively small character actions and player choices and decisions that are little more then ripples in a small pond on a planet in an infinite multiverse. Most of the game is a railroad, but it all makes sense so the player won't see it if they don't look (''the dwarf put a goodlock on his treasure chest? Who would have thought..."). The goal is to lead(force) the players to do things that set up and pay off in structured fun for everyone.

"Fun" is a meaningless qualifier here that you invoke a lot as some kind of evidence that this methodnis better or more unique.

This is just the Standard Railroad listed before, but with the "Fun" word added as if it has significant meaning. (And slackened slightly. It has some branches, but only Pre-Approved Branches.)

It does not.

"Fun" is a meaningless buzzword as far as games are concerned for a simple and obvious reason: Not everyone has the same definition of fun. What I find fun, you likely don't find fun. (I genuinely enjoy arguing and have fun doing it. I also have fun selling used cars. I have fun driving real fast. I have fun GMing in systems that let me improv, and I have fun GMing open-world styled games with streamlined mechanics and highly focused genres and themes. Etc.) While I enjoy writing stories, I don't have fun pre-plotting out a whole campaign. That isn't fun for me.

There is no universal "Fun", so using it for argument doesn't help you at all.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-18, 09:56 AM
What no one for me?


Awesome Balanced Railroad of fun!: The players have as much freedom as they want to think they do when the DM controls everything in the whole game except the relatively small character actions and player choices and decisions that are little more then ripples in a small pond on a planet in an infinite multiverse. Most of the game is a railroad, but it all makes sense so the player won't see it if they don't look (''the dwarf put a goodlock on his treasure chest? Who would have thought..."). The goal is to lead(force) the players to do things that set up and pay off in structured fun for everyone.


No such thing. It's a chimera... a unicorn... a jackelope.

"No, really, guys, I promise, doing exactly what I tell you to do for the next 4 hours while pretending you get to makes choses will be loads of fun!"



http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/f6/f67334bc58f2468bad15312669d5edaa0afe4c44de4eb56039 994a47f00d296b.jpg

2D8HP
2016-11-18, 11:18 AM
"No, really, guys, I promise, doing exactly what I tell you to do for the next 4 hours while pretending you get to makes choses will be loads of fun!" Well....
Seldom as fun as when you perceive player agency, but still more fun than Empty Room aimless, no real setting, "You guys take turns telling your back-stories, and maybe do some PvP", 'adventures'.
Like most I've spent disagreeable times "playing", in a railroaded game, and prefer to not see the rails, but, having recently witnessed an even worse alternative, I'm now inclined to regard slight railroading as the safest default to avoid lameness.
You can only do the soliloquies for so long, and if it winds up that nothing really happens beyond PC to PC dialog and/or PvP, I'd just as soon read a novel, or bring out a Diplomacy, Dungeon, or Risk game box.
A gaggle of PC's without a "World" to play in, just isn't as fun for me.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-18, 11:24 AM
Well....
Seldom as fun as when you perceive player agency, but still more fun than Empty Room aimless, no real setting, "You guys take turns telling your back-stories, and maybe do some PvP", 'adventures'.

Like most I've spent disagreeable times "playing", in a railroaded game, and prefer to not see the rails, but, having recently witnessed an even worse alternative, I'm now inclined to regard slight railroading as the safest default to avoid lameness.

You can only do the soliloquies for so long, and if it winds up that nothing really happens beyond PC to PC dialog and/or PvP, I'd just as soon read a novel, or bring out a Diplomacy, Dungeon, or Risk game box.

A gaggle of PC's without a "World" to play in, just isn't as fun for me.


I've never seen an "empty room" game, and until this thread, I'd never heard of such.


And I'm not sure how we ended up with this notion of a false axis that has "total railroad" on one end, and "there's no world at all to play in, and the session consists of player soliloquies and PC dialogue and PvP" on the other end. The two are neither parallel nor perpendicular, they're ends of two separate axis that are tangentially related.

In fact, the later (empty room / players make talkings at each other) scenario is so ridiculous and far out that it strikes me as a caricature, rather than a reality.

Segev
2016-11-18, 11:34 AM
I'm not sure how we ended up with this notion of a false axis that has "total railroad" on one end, and "there's no world at all to play in, and the session consists of player soliloquies and PC dialogue and PvP" on the other end. The two are neither parallel nor perpendicular, they're ends of two separate axis that are tangentially related. Indeed. Just as "optimization" and "role playing" are not opposite ends of the same axis, but are not-quite-orthogonal to each other (with the relation being reverse of what the Stormwind fallacy would tell you it is), "empty room with nothing to do" and "railroad" are not on the same axis. In fact, I'd argue that "empty room" is likewise more positively correlated with railroading than negatively. The more stringent the rails, the more likely there is to be nothing but "empty room" outside of view of them. Or worse, even a millimeter off of them.


In fact, the later (empty room / players make talkings at each other) scenario is so ridiculous and far out that it strikes me as a caricature, rather than a reality.

It does happen. It's a hallmark of one of two things: a grossly underprepared GM, or a railroad where the PCs balked at the rails and determinedly struck out away from them (into territory where the GM has nothing prepared and is unwilling or unable to improvise nor to end the session while he plans for next time).

I've seen the "grossly underprepared GM" variety happen most forgivably with a GM who thought "emergent story" would arise from highly self-motivated PCs making up their own causes and the GM not really having a world more fleshed out than broad strokes, so there aren't hooks and levers for PCs to pull on.

It is probably that latter which gives the false impression that a "sandbox" or "player-led game" is an 'empty room.' Just as the hack-and-slash player who just wants to win the game (or at least the combat mini-game within the game) leads to the false impression that RP and optimization are on opposite ends of the same axis, even though they aren't.

2D8HP
2016-11-18, 12:25 PM
I've never seen an "empty room" game, and until this thread, I'd never heard of such.
I'm pretty sure that I made up the phase for this thread.

In fact, the later (empty room / players make talkings at each other) scenario is so ridiculous and far out that it strikes me as a caricature, rather than a reality.Sadly in the past couple of months I've experienced first an "Empty Room", and then an "Express Line Railroad", both were awful, but only the "Empty Room", had the mass exodus of players (the railroad continues, with a couple of drop outs. I'm still "playing" in the railroad, in the hope that eventually the PC's can escape and an actual adventure will result, but mostly out of a stubborn refusal to quit, but it's getting more tempting to bail or suicide my PC).
Perhaps it's Karmic punishment for my re-using almost the same back-story for both of my PC's in the two "campaigns" (probably the best I've managed to write), but being in two really boring, but for different reasons campaigns has been instructive.
On the "Express-Line", you have no real choice in what your PC does, and in the "Empty Room", there is no real point to anything your PC does. I don't recommend either, but at least the "Railroad Engineer" seemed to be almost trying to create an adventure.
But after both of those "games", I'm feeling much better about my own most recent failures as a GM (I was just terrible at rules memorization and adjudication, but unless I'm delusional I still can set up a scene, Worldbuild, and play act NPC's like I used to).

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-18, 01:36 PM
Indeed. Just as "optimization" and "role playing" are not opposite ends of the same axis, but are not-quite-orthogonal to each other (with the relation being reverse of what the Stormwind fallacy would tell you it is), "empty room with nothing to do" and "railroad" are not on the same axis. In fact, I'd argue that "empty room" is likewise more positively correlated with railroading than negatively. The more stringent the rails, the more likely there is to be nothing but "empty room" outside of view of them. Or worse, even a millimeter off of them.


Right -- and same here, I associate that paucity of worldbuilding more with "railroad" games, and not with decision-driven open-ended games.




It does happen. It's a hallmark of one of two things: a grossly underprepared GM, or a railroad where the PCs balked at the rails and determinedly struck out away from them (into territory where the GM has nothing prepared and is unwilling or unable to improvise nor to end the session while he plans for next time).

I've seen the "grossly underprepared GM" variety happen most forgivably with a GM who thought "emergent story" would arise from highly self-motivated PCs making up their own causes and the GM not really having a world more fleshed out than broad strokes, so there aren't hooks and levers for PCs to pull on.

It is probably that latter which gives the false impression that a "sandbox" or "player-led game" is an 'empty room.' Just as the hack-and-slash player who just wants to win the game (or at least the combat mini-game within the game) leads to the false impression that RP and optimization are on opposite ends of the same axis, even though they aren't.


Actually, fair or not, this "empty room" thing is bringing to mind the idea of "no myth", that everything is a blank slate and nothing exists in the game/setting until it's put forth in the game.

Segev
2016-11-18, 02:02 PM
Actually, fair or not, this "empty room" thing is bringing to mind the idea of "no myth", that everything is a blank slate and nothing exists in the game/setting until it's put forth in the game.

Hm. I suppose that's as contrasted with "all there in the manual" - i.e. that the creator knows what's going on in the background and thus what's causing what the audience sees happen "on screen," but doesn't necessarily share all of it.

I can see where this might be related, but I think "empty room" is a step beyond "no myth" (as I understand your definition of it - I hadn't heard the term before, so please forgive me if I'm misinterpreting it). In "no myth," the creator (since we're speaking of RPGs, this will generally be the GM for any particular game) could have a world that's well fleshed-out, but be willing to strip out anything he's set up if something he considers better crops up, as long as he hasn't yet revealed that thing he's removing. For example, he might have the dungeon boss be a beholder in his plans, but something the players latch on to make them think the signs of a beholder being down there are a red herring, and they come up with this utterly awesome concept that it's a sentient robe of eyes which mimics beholder-like powers. So he edits that in, because he's not actually cemented, on screen, that it's definitely a beholder.

Or he planned for the princess to actually be the wicked assassin behind the attempts to usurp her father's throne, but the players have become attached to her and her response to them as he's played her out has not meshed with the personality he expected to give her, so he makes it the butler, who the players also like but would be far more believable as the badass double-agent as the story's evolved.

Whereas an empty room wouldn't have a princess or a butler or even a plot to kill the king, and the dungeon may or may not be fully designed before the players get to the next room.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-18, 02:14 PM
Hm. I suppose that's as contrasted with "all there in the manual" - i.e. that the creator knows what's going on in the background and thus what's causing what the audience sees happen "on screen," but doesn't necessarily share all of it.

I can see where this might be related, but I think "empty room" is a step beyond "no myth" (as I understand your definition of it - I hadn't heard the term before, so please forgive me if I'm misinterpreting it). In "no myth," the creator (since we're speaking of RPGs, this will generally be the GM for any particular game) could have a world that's well fleshed-out, but be willing to strip out anything he's set up if something he considers better crops up, as long as he hasn't yet revealed that thing he's removing. For example, he might have the dungeon boss be a beholder in his plans, but something the players latch on to make them think the signs of a beholder being down there are a red herring, and they come up with this utterly awesome concept that it's a sentient robe of eyes which mimics beholder-like powers. So he edits that in, because he's not actually cemented, on screen, that it's definitely a beholder.

Or he planned for the princess to actually be the wicked assassin behind the attempts to usurp her father's throne, but the players have become attached to her and her response to them as he's played her out has not meshed with the personality he expected to give her, so he makes it the butler, who the players also like but would be far more believable as the badass double-agent as the story's evolved.

Whereas an empty room wouldn't have a princess or a butler or even a plot to kill the king, and the dungeon may or may not be fully designed before the players get to the next room.


"No Myth (http://inky.org/rpg/no-myth.html)" in the words of one promoting it. "The premise, and the reason it's called No Myth, is this: nothing you haven't said to the group exists."


I had a long "discussion" with someone who was trying to establish a false dichotomy between "no myth" and "total railroad" on EnWorld's forums, and I'd link to it, but sadly that discussion was lost when their forum database melted down this fall. He was trying to frame it as "story now" versus "story before", and presenting it as the GM either letting the players decisions and choices and ideas create EVERYTHING, or making it all MEANINGLESS and taking the players along for a guided tour.

Segev
2016-11-18, 02:18 PM
"No Myth (http://inky.org/rpg/no-myth.html)" in the words of one promoting it. "The premise, and the reason it's called No Myth, is this: nothing you haven't said to the group exists."

I had a long "discussion" with someone who was trying to establish a false dichotomy between "no myth" and "total railroad" on EnWorld's forums, and I'd link to it, but sadly that discussion was lost when their forum database melted down this fall.

I can see validity in "no myth" as summarized in your quote here. I'll read the longer description in a minute. It gives freedom to the DM to get himself out of a corner if it is only his exterior plans that form part of the walls hemming him in. Change something he hasn't shown the players, and he can get himself out of it.

Edit: Having read it, I see where the "it's railroading!" argument comes in. He has a specific example of "if the PCs need to be arrested by the guards to be forced to compete in a gladiatorial arena, then successfully resisting arrest shouldn't be an option." That is classic railroading. That is not, however, a "no myth" necessity. The fact that there's "nothing interesting" that comes from successfully resisting the guards is a failure of the GM to plan for it. I mean, what HAPPENS if you resist the guards? There are consequences for such things!

That said, no, "no myth" is not inherently tied to railroading. That one example is, but it's almost peripheral to the main thrust of what "no myth" is defined to be in that article.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-18, 02:32 PM
I can see validity in "no myth" as summarized in your quote here. I'll read the longer description in a minute. It gives freedom to the DM to get himself out of a corner if it is only his exterior plans that form part of the walls hemming him in. Change something he hasn't shown the players, and he can get himself out of it.


I expanded my comment a bit above to be more clear as to how it relates.


The way you're taking it, it has some utility -- the GM shouldn't feel obligated by or constrained by what's just in his notes and has never been established in the at-the-table continuity of the game, if he finds that it's just not working out or that the players have gone off in a totally unexpected direction. To me, that's just part of being a good GM and avoiding a railroad.


The way I see too many other people take it -- including the gentleman I was debating with on EnWorld -- is far more literal and expansive. In his example, the players are looking for an artifact. They search a tower where it might be, and roll to "resolve the conflict" (ugh). Now, if they succeed, then the story proceeds with them finding the artifact there. However, if they don't succeed on the roll, then the artifact was never there to begin with.

Even the GM doesn't know, until they roll to "resolve the conflict" (ugh), whether or not the artifact is in the tower they're searching.

:confused:

After many years of watching comic books and other episodic fiction suffer under the lash of retroactive continuity, the last thing I want is for that sort of crap to be inflicted on my RPGs as well.

And the excuse for this? "It makes a better story." The same excuse used to paper over the abuses of retconning.

Segev
2016-11-18, 02:40 PM
I expanded my comment a bit above to be more clear as to how it relates.

The way you're taking it, it has some utility -- the GM shouldn't feel obligated by or constrained by what's just in his notes and has never been established in the at-the-table continuity of the game.

The way I see too many other people take it -- including the gentleman I was debating with on EnWorld -- is far more literal and expansive.Ah, I see.


In his example, the players are looking for an artifact. They search a tower where it might be, and roll to "resolve the conflict" (ugh). Now, if they succeed, then the story proceeds with them finding the artifact there. However, if they don't succeed on the roll, then the artifact was never there to begin with.While I can see merit in some styles of gameplay that do this... ... ...it shouldn't be overused. In fact, in games where this happens (make choice A and the branch reveals that the butler was behind the murder; make choice B and the branch reveals that the "murder" was an accident, all in service to making totally different stories that are interesting on their own), I get frustrated that my choice wasn't a choice that altered how I reacted to an established world, but instead my choice affected things that should not have been affected by my choice.

The bigger sin, though, in this example you've listed is that it reduced an entire role playing adventure to a single roll to "resolve the challenge." Which...isn't what I got from the article you linked at all. A "challenge" to be resolved is something immediate and in your way. And the "roll" isn't necessarily a SINGLE roll. It can be invoking combat or social mechanics to resolve a challenging encounter.

That tower's artifact-fetching quest should involve rolls for combat with guardians, rolls to search for traps and secret doors, rolls to identify/know important clues, and lots and lots of small choices about how they approach the tower, explore it, and seek to learn about, avoid, or overcome its defenses.


Even the GM doesn't know, until they roll to "resolve the conflict" (ugh), whether or not the artifact is in the tower they're searching.

:confused:Yeah, that's... silly.

The way I interpreted it was more that, if the GM hasn't revealed the artifact is definitely there, he can, up to the last moment, decide "your clockwork princess is in another castle." Or, if he'd already thought, "You know, it'd be cool to pull a Mario Bros. on them," but found that running the tower was fun but something that would get old if they did it again, he could decide to scrap the other secret towers he had planned and put the artifact there after all.


After many years of watching comic books and other episodic fiction suffer under the lash of retroactive continuity, the last thing I want is for that sort of crap to be inflicted on my RPGs as well.

And the excuse for this? "It makes a better story." The same excuse used to paper over the abuses of retconning.
Like any tool, it can make things better. Like any tool, it can break things. I see benefit to its judicious use, but...no, not as the guy you were arguing with apparently saw it.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-18, 03:31 PM
The bigger sin, though, in this example you've listed is that it reduced an entire role playing adventure to a single roll to "resolve the challenge." Which...isn't what I got from the article you linked at all. A "challenge" to be resolved is something immediate and in your way. And the "roll" isn't necessarily a SINGLE roll. It can be invoking combat or social mechanics to resolve a challenging encounter.

That tower's artifact-fetching quest should involve rolls for combat with guardians, rolls to search for traps and secret doors, rolls to identify/know important clues, and lots and lots of small choices about how they approach the tower, explore it, and seek to learn about, avoid, or overcome its defenses.


To be fair, "conflict resolution" / "big encompassing mechanics" is a separate bugbear of mine that the gentleman in question and his example happened to hit on -- they are not not inherent to the "story now" concept.

Segev
2016-11-18, 04:07 PM
To be fair, "conflict resolution" / "big encompassing mechanics" is a separate bugbear of mine that the gentleman in question and his example happened to hit on -- they are not not inherent to the "story now" concept.

By "conflict resultion / big encompassing mechanics" do you mean "abstract it out to the point that you have one roll to resolve an entire scene?" Or do you mean something else? I'm interested in this bugbear of yours, or at least curious what you mean by it.

2D8HP
2016-11-18, 04:23 PM
Indeed. Just as "optimization" and "role playing" are not opposite ends of the same axis, but are not-quite-orthogonal to each other (with the relation being reverse of what the Stormwind fallacy would tell you it is), "empty room with nothing to do" and "railroad" are not on the same axis. In fact, I'd argue that "empty room" is likewise more positively correlated with railroading than negatively. The more stringent the rails, the more likely there is to be nothing but "empty room" outside of view of them. Or worse, even a millimeter off of them.Now that's an interesting insight.
And it may derive from the same source, an unwillingness of the GM to create/improvise new situations.
In the "Empty Room" campaign after the invitation to a notables mansion we were all together and after some brief banter the DM said:

So, given the total silence so far, I expect that you're all waiting for me to make things move along? Nothing much happened after that (one player simply tried a strength check to throw a piece of furniture, so that something would happen!), and a campaign with a promising premise (old adventurers reunite to fight a tyrant risen from the grave) ended. The campaign started because a player had a 10th level PC they wanted to play, and made a suggestion, and someone volunteered to DM, who then demanded back-stories (I wrote my best one yet), and then it became clear that no situations would happen at all beyond banter and whatever actions the players attempted in an effectively empty world.
That experience has now made me shy of "player-led" games, and while not the worst "RPG" experience I've had, it is not one I'd like to repeat.

:frown:

Now in the "player-led, Empty Room" game, I suppose we could have turned into a Wargame and fought each other so something would happen , but PvP is not what I wanted to do (the rules used were 5e DnD), I'd rather play Diplomacy or Risk if it' going to be a competition between players.

In a recent "GM-led" "Express Line Railroad" game (also 5e DnD but different players and DM, I re-used a now useless PC back-story), the PC's were invited to a King's Palace, and then:

"We will have a non-lethal combat between these three Champions in just a few minutes. The last individual standing wins. My attendees will be more than happy to take any wagers you may want to make, at a nominal fee of course,"

:furious:

:sigh:

Please just spare me.

I want to explore a fantastic world not submit a back-story to entertain the "DM", engage in brief banter and/or battle other PC's.

"Railroad" vs. "Sandbox"?

I don't even really know what those are supposed to mean anymore, and increassingly, I just don't care.

"Player-led" or "GM-led"?

I still don't care.

Awesome vs. Lame (fun or not fun)?

That's what I care about, and I really don't see how either a somnolent or Tyrannical DM help.

Thankfully I've had some good other D&D experiences this last year, because if I was only to judge by the "Empty Room", and "Express-line Railroad" "campaigns", I would again leave the hobby for decades (I really need to better remember the rules, because there really does seem to be a crying need for another DM).

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-18, 04:24 PM
By "conflict resultion / big encompassing mechanics" do you mean "abstract it out to the point that you have one roll to resolve an entire scene?" Or do you mean something else? I'm interested in this bugbear of yours, or at least curious what you mean by it.

Task resolution -- the character makes an attempt to do something, and the mechanics are used to determine if, or how well, they succeed. Example -- roll stealth to sneak up on a guard or past a guard.

Conflict resolution -- the dice are rolled when there is a "conflict", either at the end or beginning of "narrating" some sequence of events within a scene or the entirety of a scene. Example -- roll stealth (or some overly-abstracted thing) to see if you're sneaking in "the scene" or some chunk of it. You might not even be rolling against the guards, since your "conflict" isn't with them, but rather with their boss inside.

In the later, if there's no chance of failure, then you're not even supposed to roll, which to me is telegraphing information to the players at the cost of the unknown and suspense.

BRC
2016-11-18, 05:08 PM
The "No-Myth"/Railroading argument has been discussed on these forums before, under the term "Quantum Ogre" (The DM plans for the PC's to fight an Ogre. The PC's are offered three roads to take, regardless of which road they take, the Ogre is there and always has been, from the PC's perspective, they just happened to pick the road with the Ogre, from the GM's perspective, they plotted out one challenge, but gave the players the sensation of choosing between three).

It's a dishonest bit of the Smoke-And-Mirrors that all GMing requires, IMO harmless in small amounts, but can lead to denying the Players any meaningful ability to influence the story.


Personally, I'm of the opinion that there exists uncharted blank space at the edges of any campaign setting, even a fully fleshed out one can have individual character backstories generated in-game via a quick round of Yes And on behalf of GM and Players, with jokes and dialogue writing facts into the world as it goes, filling in that blank space in a way that makes the world feel expansive, rather than limited by the constrains of what has been established. It makes the PC's feel like inhabitants of a living world, instead of blind puppets groping around for exposition.

For example, the PC's meet a retired legendary folk hero, one of the players says something like "Is it true that you defeated the Dragon Pirates of Skullfire Island!". Skullfire Island didn't exist before, but provided it doesn't contradict anything in the setting, sure why not, here it is. And maybe later the PC's end up going there.


The issue with this blank space is, unless it's part of an established mechanical ability, it should rarely have any real bearing on the situation being resolved right now. It's fine to establish things, then revisit them later, but neither player nor GM should be using the empty holes in the world to solve a problem they're facing right now, doing so violates the basic premise of the GM-Player relationship. The GM presents a scenario, the Players respond to that scenario. Using the empty space is CHANGING the scenario, not resolving it, which isn't fair to either side.

For example, the PCs are trying to get an audience with the king, one of the players declaring that their Cousin is a royal advisor, even if it makes sense (The character in question is noble-born), is changing the scenario substantially.
The exception is games where this sort of "Blank Space filling" is explicitly an abstracted mechanical ability, most commonly used in systems that have Knowledge or Contacts as a skill. Rolling a Knowledge skill isn't so much a test of your character's ability vs this challenge, as it is the chance that your character happened to know the fact in question. Succeeding on a knowledge check means you learned that thing, failing means you didn't learn it, a higher knowledge skill means you are better educated in that field, and so have a better chance of knowing any given piece of information.


That said, I think it is important that the Players know that the important parts of the world exist already, and that the "blank spaces" are minor details not critical to the crucial scenario. I'm in a dresden files fate campaign where the GM is way too reliant on a deck of fate cards (Cards that have a fudge die roll, plus a descriptor like "Unexpected Benefit" for a good roll or "Crushing Failure" for an especially bad one, to give the GM ideas on how to resolve that particular outcome) when it comes to worldbuilding. The Big Evil Ritual was taking place in an apartment building controlled by evil vampires, with an army of vampire goons sitting on top of it. In order to disrupt the ritual, we had to spend several sessions doing research and setting up a plan to sneak somebody inside, since a frontal assault would be suicide.

Which is great, except that I saw the GM draw from his deck before declaring that the site in question was well-guarded. Had the deck said differently, we might have been storming a disused 7-11 guarded by a drunken thug and a mean dog.

Conveniently, a handful of friendly draws from the deck meant that our eventual scheme went off almost disappointingly smoothly. Our diversionary attack ended up facing so little resistance that it became a challenge to make sure the enemies had a chance to sound the alarm before our combat monsters took them down, a friendly draw from the deck meant that the head honcho of the aformentioned vampire fortress was an easily foolable dim bulb, who ended up just walking away and leaving our infiltrator to his own devices.

Which, sure, that was empty white space, the Gm could fill it as he wished, but leaving that up to RNG made the eventual victory feel kind of hollow.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-18, 05:15 PM
Awesome vs. Lame (fun or not fun)?

That's what I care about, and I really don't see how either a somnolent or Tyrannical DM help.




Neither of those two extremes will help -- but again, there's not just a falsely excluded middle there, but an entirely excluded multidimensional space.

Cluedrew
2016-11-18, 07:20 PM
I'm pretty sure that I made up the phase [empty room] for this thread.It works a little bit better than my featureless void phase. I used the term because I have heard of (in the Worst GM thread) games that suffer from no-one leading them and have no direction. However the references to space may be a bit misleading in my case. I'm not sure exactly sure what you meant but my image included not only the setting lacking features but the abstract environment missing things like plot hooks and the plans for the future being blank. BRC's example seems to be suffering from the issue in a smaller way than some.

Still it is not one of the more common issues. Having ideas isn't hard. Although having good ones (for the situation) and making them work can be much harder.


Neither of those two extremes will help -- but again, there's not just a falsely excluded middle there, but an entirely excluded multidimensional space.I like that.

2D8HP
2016-11-18, 11:52 PM
i'm not sure exactly sure what you meant but my image included not only the setting lacking features but the abstract environment missing things like plot hooks and the plans for the future being blank. Spot on, that's exactly what I meant by "Empty Room".

still it is not one of the more common issues..Thankfully rare. I (like most of us) have had unpleasant times being "railroaded" over the decades, but it was only recently that I found out just how bad a"player led" game can be, so I want to warn folks that "player-led" can be taken too far, and actually give an experience that feels a lot like the worst "Express-line Railroad", indeed even more boring and frustrating.
The O.P. of this thread who originally asked "Player-led games vs. GM-led games", seemed to get that at the extremes player or GM led is a Hobson's choice.
I really wish some GM's would be truthful and just say "sorry I don't have anything else prepared, and I can't think of how to proceed yet", "please listen to an authors reading during which you occasionally roll dice", and for my recent "Empty Room" campaign experience, "please come contribute to a short story anthology about a world in which I contribute, the name of a city, the name of a river, and no other details.


extremely player-led, and completely gm-led rpg's just don't seem that fun to me, and hardly rpg's at all.

Fun is in the balance.

I completely agree....
I do think darth is right to say in player-led games the players effectively choose an objective from a list of options. In a skilfully run game the list is constantly changing in response to the players' actions, but i am extremely sceptical of the idea that anyone can provide a truly organic game world without solidifying bits of it into tangible options.Until October of this year, I would have found Darth Ultron's contention that "railroad's are better" ridiculous, but my recent "Empty Room" campaign experience has so scarred me that I now wonder if it's better to have slight railroading just to be safe.


i've had similar thoughts actually. Basically, you want the gm to run the world, and you as player to run your own character.Yes. And while I've long thought that a GM who takes control of my PC away from me annoying, I found a GM wanting the players to make up almost all of the details of the world even more annoying.


There are GM-led games and player-led games. In the GM-led game, the GM presents a scenario with a goal, and the players engage with that scenario and try to achieve that goal. In a player-led game the GM provides only an environment, a world, and the players explore it at their leisure and choose a goal themselves; the GM is there to facilitate this process and make it as much fun as possible. If only the GM had done at least that! He took "player-led" way too far!
I really didn't know a "game of D&D" could go wrong in that way, and yes I do place the faliure of the campaign on a disinterested DM. The other players were amazing, we all submitted compelling back-stories (even me), and the other players did great character-based dialog, but without any real feedback from the environment, we and our PC's just ran out of things to say,.the DM complained about our silence, a player had his PC attempt to throw a piece of furniture, and that was the end of that.
I've re-used the (apparently cursed) best back-story I ever wrote in a different DM's campaign, which so far is an awful railroad, but it's still not as boring as the "Empty Room".

:sigh:

It was just so LAME! Why did he volunteer to DM?

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-19, 12:34 AM
Until October of this year, I would have found Darth Ultron's contention that "railroad's are better" ridiculous, but my recent "Empty Room" campaign experience has so scarred me that I now wonder if it's better to have slight railroading just to be safe.



"Slight railroading"?

I'm not even sure if that's a thing.

OldTrees1
2016-11-19, 01:08 AM
"Slight railroading"?

I'm not even sure if that's a thing.

A 15+ page thread went into this awhile back. Summary: Railroading(def 1) is when a DM strings together a lot of railroading(def 2) to the point of railroading(def 3) the players to a detrimental degree. Definition 1 is worse than definition 3 which is worse than definition 2. So slight railroading would be the use of what qualifies under definition 2 but not under definitions 3 or 1. An slightly controversial example would be quantum modules(akin but different from quantum ogres).

NichG
2016-11-19, 02:51 AM
I think a flip side of the No Myth stuff is that deep gameplay (as opposed to just story) is created from promises rather than events. That is, flipping something from unknown to known may create the sequence of events that happened and the corresponding story, but the interesting stuff is when players know (or believe) that the result of the flip can be made to go a certain way. If the game is taking place very close to the edge of what anyone at the table knows or has an idea about, there's very little for the players to think about or plan because things can quickly become arbitrary. But of course, the GM pre-planning every detail doesn't actually mean the players have that information either, if it isn't communicated (so it might as well be an unknown).

Promises bridge the gap - the GM or rules communicating 'if you do this, then this is what will happen'. That is, rather than saying 'the details of the world are this way', by saying 'this is the method I will use to decide the unknown details' the players can then attempt to figure out what to do to attain a given outcome.

When I say 'unknown details' I don't necessarily mean 'how many guards are in the shop?' - it could be stuff even at the level of 'what happens if I try to stab this guard?'. But in some games it actually is stuff like 'how many guards are in the shop?'. Promises can be mechanics ('roll to hit, compare to AC, inflict damage') but they can also take the form of information-gathering abilities possessed by the characters ('I use my divination to figure out what will happen if we enter through the front door') or even meta-game constructs ('GM: I promise I won't punish players for improvising or trying rule-of-cool stuff')

A promise also doesn't have to be a definite answer, it doesn't have to solidify a specific detail, it just has to give the players a way of thinking about what might happen.

2D8HP
2016-11-19, 07:59 AM
"Slight railroading"?

I'm not even sure if that's a thing.You also doubt the "Empty Room" syndrome (it's real and it's awful).
An example of a "Slight Railroad" would be the "Out of the Abyss" module, in which the initial set-up of the PC's all being enslaved by the Drow, I would regard as a railroad, but the PC's do eventually get to escape and have some agency. An "Express Line Railroad" is for example the PC's being forced to be gladiators with the "campaign" just becoming endless arena fights (or even worse the PC's are forced to fight each other).
"Empty Room", and "Express Line" can paradoxically be very similar, in that "If you don't fight each other the guards will fill you so full of arrows that your PC's die", is little different than "Nothing happens" (unless you fight each other because the GM really hasn't made a setting, and if you can't tell already I really don't like PvP).
Besides "Empty Room" resulting from a GM who seems to want the players to provide all the content, ("what do you see?", instead of "what do you do?"), "Empty Room" also results from a passive aggressive GM who has a single adventure path in mind, and until and unless the PC's find the rails and start following them nothing will happen, but he won't just come clean and tell you.
I went so many years without getting to play that I thought the adage of "No D&D is better than bad D&D" was just wrong,. but after a two month period of experiencing first an "Empty Room", then a "Express Line Railroad", I'm coming around to "Bad D&D is worse".

Look.I understand that GM'ing is work, but if an "Empty Room" or a "Express Line Railroad" is all you can do, please say so!

Cluedrew
2016-11-19, 08:20 AM
Until October of this year, I would have found Darth Ultron's contention that "railroad's are better" ridiculous, but my recent "Empty Room" campaign experience has so scarred me that I now wonder if it's better to have slight railroading just to be safe.I agree that having plans is good, but I disagree on railroading being good because of my definition of railroading which came up in that big thread that has been mentioned. It was:

Railroading: A player (usually GM) forcing the other players to go with a particular pre-determined plot.

Because it caused a bit of confusion last time, force means actually forcing them to do it, as in they don't want to do it. Under my definition, it is pretty hard to have good railroading. Because the only thing you need for it to stop being railroading is player buy-in.

I have played in several campaigns where the plot was pre-planned, but it wasn't railroading because we wanted to go along with it. Until everyone else got bored, wondered into the desert and died of dehydration... we did a reboot after that.


It was just so LAME! Why did he volunteer to DM?An over estimation in your ability to improvise is one. But in this case the probably just didn't think it through.

2D8HP
2016-11-19, 11:09 AM
Railroading: A player (usually GM) forcing the other players to go with a particular pre-determined plot.....
.....Under my definition, it is pretty hard to have good railroading. Because the only thing you need for it to stop being railroading is player buy-in.

Ok that fits with something I posted earlier.


Railroad =
Being captured and enslaved and forced to fight in a gladiatorial arena.

:roy: :annoyed:


Not Railroad/Awesome! =

A motivation of treasure!

:haley: :biggrin:

.....See the difference is that in the arena example the DM has dropped the PC's into a situation that is lame with their having no choice in the matter, whereas in the treasure seeking examples, the DM has dropped the PC's into a situation that is AWESOME! so of course the players would choose it.

Now a more interesting question to me is, why do players put up with railroads?

I know that in the railroad I'm currently "playing" there's been a slow trickle of players leaving the game, while I'm eyeing the exit, I stay (so far) in the game because I hope it gets better, and DM's are hard to come by, and at least things are happening (I think the DM is becoming frustrated with me because my PC is becoming a C.O. pacifist, rather then be coerced into fighting).

But with the Empty Room game there was a mass exodus of players. No coercion was felt, it just became clear that after the only two non-mute NPC's went silent there was nothing to interact with besides the other PC's.
It seemed the DM felt that all he had to do was read the back-stories we submitted to him, and then sit back and listen to in-character banter.
Are there ever any lasting games where the DM can be that somnolent?

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-19, 11:46 AM
You also doubt the "Empty Room" syndrome (it's real and it's awful).
An example of a "Slight Railroad" would be the "Out of the Abyss" module, in which the initial set-up of the PC's all being enslaved by the Drow, I would regard as a railroad, but the PC's do eventually get to escape and have some agency. An "Express Line Railroad" is for example the PC's being forced to be gladiators with the "campaign" just becoming endless arena fights (or even worse the PC's are forced to fight each other).
"Empty Room", and "Express Line" can paradoxically be very similar, in that "If you don't fight each other the guards will fill you so full of arrows that your PC's die", is little different than "Nothing happens" (unless you fight each other because the GM really hasn't made a setting, and if you can't tell already I really don't like PvP).
Besides "Empty Room" resulting from a GM who seems to want the players to provide all the content, ("what do you see?", instead of "what do you do?"), "Empty Room" also results from a passive aggressive GM who has a single adventure path in mind, and until and unless the PC's find the rails and start following them nothing will happen, but he won't just come clean and tell you.
I went so many years without getting to play that I thought the adage of "No D&D is better than bad D&D" was just wrong,. but after a two month period of experiencing first an "Empty Room", then a "Express Line Railroad", I'm coming around to "Bad D&D is worse".

Look.I understand that GM'ing is work, but if an "Empty Room" or a "Express Line Railroad" is all you can do, please say so!

The reason I wonder if the "slight railroad" is a thing, is because it's getting into the blurry area where there almost has to be some worldbuilding and prep work, most GMs cannot just make up 100% of everything on the fly purely in response to the players, and if the NPCs are to be treated as active entities (rather than cardboard standies that only act when the PCs are "present") then the the antagonists are going to be actively trying to keep things moving in the direction they want.

There are actually RPG "analysts" who would insist that it's "bad GMing" for things to be happening independent of the PCs... (tired to find a link to one of the discussion elsewhere, no luck right now). They might call that "railroading". Then we have at least one person here who wants to stretch the definition of "railroading" as broadly as possible so that it's no longer a criticism when actual hardcore railroading is called just that (railroading).

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-19, 12:02 PM
The "No-Myth"/Railroading argument has been discussed on these forums before, under the term "Quantum Ogre" (The DM plans for the PC's to fight an Ogre. The PC's are offered three roads to take, regardless of which road they take, the Ogre is there and always has been, from the PC's perspective, they just happened to pick the road with the Ogre, from the GM's perspective, they plotted out one challenge, but gave the players the sensation of choosing between three).

It's a dishonest bit of the Smoke-And-Mirrors that all GMing requires, IMO harmless in small amounts, but can lead to denying the Players any meaningful ability to influence the story.


Personally, I'm of the opinion that there exists uncharted blank space at the edges of any campaign setting, even a fully fleshed out one can have individual character backstories generated in-game via a quick round of Yes And on behalf of GM and Players, with jokes and dialogue writing facts into the world as it goes, filling in that blank space in a way that makes the world feel expansive, rather than limited by the constrains of what has been established. It makes the PC's feel like inhabitants of a living world, instead of blind puppets groping around for exposition.

For example, the PC's meet a retired legendary folk hero, one of the players says something like "Is it true that you defeated the Dragon Pirates of Skullfire Island!". Skullfire Island didn't exist before, but provided it doesn't contradict anything in the setting, sure why not, here it is. And maybe later the PC's end up going there.


The issue with this blank space is, unless it's part of an established mechanical ability, it should rarely have any real bearing on the situation being resolved right now. It's fine to establish things, then revisit them later, but neither player nor GM should be using the empty holes in the world to solve a problem they're facing right now, doing so violates the basic premise of the GM-Player relationship. The GM presents a scenario, the Players respond to that scenario. Using the empty space is CHANGING the scenario, not resolving it, which isn't fair to either side.

For example, the PCs are trying to get an audience with the king, one of the players declaring that their Cousin is a royal advisor, even if it makes sense (The character in question is noble-born), is changing the scenario substantially.
The exception is games where this sort of "Blank Space filling" is explicitly an abstracted mechanical ability, most commonly used in systems that have Knowledge or Contacts as a skill. Rolling a Knowledge skill isn't so much a test of your character's ability vs this challenge, as it is the chance that your character happened to know the fact in question. Succeeding on a knowledge check means you learned that thing, failing means you didn't learn it, a higher knowledge skill means you are better educated in that field, and so have a better chance of knowing any given piece of information.


That said, I think it is important that the Players know that the important parts of the world exist already, and that the "blank spaces" are minor details not critical to the crucial scenario. I'm in a dresden files fate campaign where the GM is way too reliant on a deck of fate cards (Cards that have a fudge die roll, plus a descriptor like "Unexpected Benefit" for a good roll or "Crushing Failure" for an especially bad one, to give the GM ideas on how to resolve that particular outcome) when it comes to worldbuilding. The Big Evil Ritual was taking place in an apartment building controlled by evil vampires, with an army of vampire goons sitting on top of it. In order to disrupt the ritual, we had to spend several sessions doing research and setting up a plan to sneak somebody inside, since a frontal assault would be suicide.

Which is great, except that I saw the GM draw from his deck before declaring that the site in question was well-guarded. Had the deck said differently, we might have been storming a disused 7-11 guarded by a drunken thug and a mean dog.

Conveniently, a handful of friendly draws from the deck meant that our eventual scheme went off almost disappointingly smoothly. Our diversionary attack ended up facing so little resistance that it became a challenge to make sure the enemies had a chance to sound the alarm before our combat monsters took them down, a friendly draw from the deck meant that the head honcho of the aformentioned vampire fortress was an easily foolable dim bulb, who ended up just walking away and leaving our infiltrator to his own devices.

Which, sure, that was empty white space, the Gm could fill it as he wished, but leaving that up to RNG made the eventual victory feel kind of hollow.


I think you cover a lot of good ground there and sum up a lot of the dividing lines well. Phrasing it as "don't use the blank space to resolve challenges and obstacles" is great.


On the "quantum ogre" example, if we're taking the situation literally, then as the GM I would plan it as something like "the ogres aren't idiots, they know there are three roads, so they sent an ogre to each road". I really don't like it, as a player in games or a reader/viewer of fiction, when it's transparent that the ogre is on the road the protagonists chose, because that's the road the protagonists chose -- it bothers me when it feels like reality is warping around the protagonists "because they're the protagonists".

Darth Ultron
2016-11-19, 01:47 PM
In "no myth," the creator (since we're speaking of RPGs, this will generally be the GM for any particular game) could have a world that's well fleshed-out, but be willing to strip out anything he's set up if something he considers better crops up, as long as he hasn't yet revealed that thing he's removing. For example, he might have the dungeon boss be a beholder in his plans, but something the players latch on to make them think the signs of a beholder being down there are a red herring, and they come up with this utterly awesome concept that it's a sentient robe of eyes which mimics beholder-like powers. So he edits that in, because he's not actually cemented, on screen, that it's definitely a beholder.

This sounds more like simply ''adaptive'' plotting. Only a bad DM would ever do something like ''I wrote down the boss is a orc warlord and that will never change.'' A good DM can change anything, even ''cemented'' stuff. Even if the characters meet ''boss beholder'' one hundred times...it can still be revealed that ''the big boss is a kobold'' controling that beholder.


"Slight railroading"?

I'm not even sure if that's a thing.

I'd point out again that railroading must exist unless your game is random or you Quantum Oger everything right in front of the characters.

And sure, you will disagree, and ok fine. Instead of just saying or or making an insult, try to answer a question: How do you set up any event to happen in the game world to the characters?

Quantum Ogre or Railroad are the only two normal ways of making, unless you have some radical third way? (and before you answer ''I have a world that reacts to the players: that is an example of ''slight railroading'').




Railroading: A player (usually GM) forcing the other players to go with a particular pre-determined plot.

The tricky thing is your definition is just ''if the players like it, it's not railroading''. And goes right back to ''as long as the players fool themselves the game is good.'' It also as the cry baby player problem of as soon as a player does not like anything, even something not in the game, the player can just cry ''I don't like this game anymore'' and it is automatically a railroad.


Now a more interesting question to me is, why do players put up with railroads?

Top Three Reasons:

1.The player accepts railroading as part of the game and likes the effects.
2.The player willing fools themselves.
3.The player is clueless.

And some bad reasons:
4.The player is a casual gamer and does not care.
5.The player has no other game to play in.

The ''nice'' answer would be to say that the player ''trusts'' the DM and does not care what they do as long as the game is whatever the player likes/wants it to be.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-19, 01:50 PM
I'd point out again that railroading must exist unless your game is random or you Quantum Oger everything right in front of the characters.


Pointing it out repeatedly doesn't make you right, and "railroad" is not a synonym for "structure", "plot", or "GM prep work".

Koo Rehtorb
2016-11-19, 01:56 PM
For Christ's sake.

Not-Railroading: "Here's some problems in the world. Do what you like with them. Solve them, exploit them for personal gain, whatever."

Railroading: "Here's a problem. You will solve it. In the way I have envisioned you solving it. If you try to do anything else of significance I will force you back into the structure of what I want."

These are not necessarily all inclusive definitions.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-19, 02:32 PM
For Christ's sake.

Not-Railroading: "Here's some problems in the world. Do what you like with them. Solve them, exploit them for personal gain, whatever."

Railroading: "Here's a problem. You will solve it. In the way I have envisioned you solving it. If you try to do anything else of significance I will force you back into the structure of what I want."

These are not necessarily all inclusive definitions.


DING.

The former is both not random, and not railroading.

Cluedrew
2016-11-19, 03:00 PM
The tricky thing is your definition is just ''if the players like it, it's not railroading''. And goes right back to ''as long as the players fool themselves the game is good.'' It also as the cry baby player problem of as soon as a player does not like anything, even something not in the game, the player can just cry ''I don't like this game anymore'' and it is automatically a railroad.I don't understand how player buy-in makes it tricky. I think buy-in/agreement is a rather straightforward concept. Additionally railroading originally (at least from my perspective as a gaming term) was defined to describe a problem. So the fact it doesn't include things that are not problems means it is doing its job.

I'm also not sure what you mean about the players fooling themselves. As in I don't actually understand the statement.

And yes anyone can cry "railroad" at any time, but that doesn't mean they are correct. A couple of things have to happen. First there has to be a pre-planned plot (how far in advanced is up for debate) that is being followed. Then someone has to do something that would (at least in perception) break or alter that plot. Finally, the moment railroading actually occurs, someone else forces them to withdraw, change or fail at that action so that the plot unfolds as planned. That is what I mean by railroading.

Actually I suppose there is one case you could argue is railroading but is not bad. And that is if a player is trying to follow a pre-planned plot and steps off by accident. Then forcing them back on path could be good. This is a definite gray area whether it count (depending on how you read force) and there might be better ways to handle it, but it could come up in a particular style of game.

2D8HP
2016-11-19, 04:11 PM
you answer ''I have a world that reacts to the players: that is an example of ''slight railroading'').Well my definitition of "Slight Railroading" also included the GM having a conclusive goal for the players

Slight Railroad:
A GM inspired plot leading to a conclusion, but the PC's actions are in the players hands:

Top Three Reasons
1.The player accepts railroading as part of the game and likes the effects.The ''nice'' answer would be to say that the player ''trusts'' the DM and does not care what they do as long as the game is whatever the player likes/wants it to be.You may argue that "Even if you like the destination, you were still on the train.", but others would ask, "Are there stops that the PC's can get off at?".

"railroad" is not a synonym for "structure", "plot", or "GM prep work".But "Empty Room" lacks all three (and having recently experienced both, as bad as a hardcore railroad is, Empty Room was even more lame!)


Not-Railroading: "Here's some problems in the world. Do what you like with them." Besides the players getting to decide how their PC's act, it also significant that it's "some problems" (not just one), which is often refered to as "fish tank", but someone may argue that it's "a multi-track railroad, and Thomas the Tank Engine ROCKS!"
:wink:

Railroading: "Here's a problem. You will solve it. In the way I have envisioned you solving it."
CHOO CHOO!

I argue that the best games usually start GM-led ("problems"), become player-led ("attempts"), and result in "Balance".

I think we can all agree that what I call:
Locked into Lameness "Your forced to fight a conga-line of antagonists in an arena for an audience, and healing between bouts is provided to drive home the utter pointlesssness of your battles.", is a "railroad",
but what about what I call:
Skip Ahead to Awesome "Your at the entrance of the Dungeon.", or even "Your inside the Dungeon. "?

I suppose player buy in make the difference?


Additionally railroading originally (at least from my perspective as a gaming term) was defined to describe a problem.

My fear is that lazy GM's arguing that "at least I'm not railroading", will make Empty Room games more common.
*shudder*

PairO'Dice Lost
2016-11-19, 04:19 PM
It's probably futile to try to correctly define "railroad" for the good Darth yet again, but here's one more shot at doing so, because (A) it might help align some of the disparate terminology being used, (B) even if it doesn't work it might be helpful as a general point of reference in the discussion, and (C) I like graphs, charts, and numbers.


I'd point out again that railroading must exist unless your game is random or you Quantum Oger everything right in front of the characters.
[...]
Quantum Ogre or Railroad are the only two normal ways of making, unless you have some radical third way? (and before you answer ''I have a world that reacts to the players: that is an example of ''slight railroading'').

You obviously view "quantum ogre vs. railroad" as a dichotomous spectrum, like this:



Quantum Ogre Railroad
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
-10 0 10



So everything is either Quantum Ogre or Railroad, with no other intermediate choices, and degrees like "slight railroad" vs. "heavy railroad" or questions like "On a scale of 1 to 10, how railroad-y is this campaign?" are meaningful to you, like this:



Amount of Railroading

None Slight Moderate Heavy Total
|-------------------|-----------------|----------------|---------------------|
0 3 5 7 10



However, the common definition of railroading (which everyone else is using) is that that part of the spectrum is not "Railroading" but "DM Control," like this:



Degree of DM Control

No Plot Pick a Plot One Main Plot Pushy DM Straitjacket
|-------------------|--------------------|-------------------|--------------------|
0 1 2 3 4



(The words here aren't standardized terms, and people might disagree on which words go where, but that should give a general impression.)

So where do "Quantum Ogre" and "Railroad" fit on this spectrum, you ask? They don't! Because degree of planning is a separate axis from degree of structure:



Degree of DM Planning

On the Fly Minor Prepwork Flexible Plans Heavily Scripted Predetermined
|-------------------|----------------------|---------------------|-----------------------|
0 1 2 3 4



So if you plot those axes against each other, you get something like this (again, not super-precise terminology, just for illustrative purposes):


4
Plot Points
Site-Based Module
Railroad
3
DM Planning2
Largely Improvised
Generic Campaign
Adventure Path
1
0
Empty Room
Quantum Ogres
Make Stuff Up

0
1
2
3
4

DM Control

So a railroad is one that is heavily planned (the DM knows exactly what's going to happen) and heavily structured (thou shalt do what the DM wants, or else). If you start talking about a "slight railroad" it doesn't make any sense, because the whole point of the term "railroad" is to convey "a campaign heavily planned and controlled by the DM," not just "a campaign with any degree of the DM doing things."

Likewise, your Quantum Ogres come in when there's a fair amount of control (the DM knows what encounters he wants you to have) but practically no planning (he'll put in the encounters so no matter where you go you run into them), and 2D8HP's Empty Room comes in when the DM hasn't prepared anything at all and is unwilling or unable to lead the PCs in any particular direction, so you can see that Empty Room is the "anti-railroad," not Quantum Ogres. A Largely Improvised campaign, where the DM has a general structure in mind and has prepared for that but is willing to adapt to the PCs' preferences and will change his plans rather than forcing his pre-planned material on them, is also on the other end of the gaming spectrum from a railroad without being its strict opposite.

A sandbox, meanwhile, is a less specifically-defined term, and corresponds roughly to any campaign on the lower left half the graph above. It can be a campaign where the DM does absolutely everything on the fly in response to the PCs' actions (Control 4, Planning 0), but it can also be one where the DM has prepared extensive notes for lots of different things to be able to respond to anything the PCs decide to do (Control 0, Planning 4), or one where the DM throws out some plot hooks he's prepared and the PCs follow one or more as the mood takes them (Control 2, Planning 2), or anything else on or below that line. There's definitely a difference in playstyle and tone between more-planned-than-controlled sandboxes and more-controlled-than-planned ones, with the differences being expressed in various ways with various connotations ("old school" sandboxes, "illusory" sandboxes, etc.), but the key aspect of such a campaign is that the PCs are exercising control over the direction of the campaign more than the DM, and all of those different campaign styles deliver on that.

2D8HP
2016-11-19, 05:19 PM
2D8HP's Empty Room comes in when the DM hasn't prepared anything at all and is unwilling or unable to lead the PCs in any particular direction, so you can see that Empty Room is the "anti-railroad,"Yes that's exactly what I meant.
Express Line Railroad and Empty Room are opposite poles, but are siblings in lameness.
I imagine a "which is more anti-awesome" discussion becoming like a "which is worse, Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil" argument.


If you start talking about a "slight railroad" it doesn't make any sense,*Since along with "Empty Room", I think I introduced the term "Slight Railroad" to the thread, but I gladly dustbin it, because your dual-axis chart is AWESOME! (useful too).

The games I've GM'd that my players seemed to like best, were heavily improvised on my part (I mostly made it all up those nights), but they were a bit "quantum" in that whether the PC's opened the left or the right doors, they would go to the same scene, but they still had a choice to not open door at all.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-19, 06:59 PM
DING.

The former is both not random, and not railroading.

This goes back to:

Railroading: the game has a story and plot that make sense

Sandbox: Random stuff just happens.


I don't understand how player buy-in makes it tricky.
I'm also not sure what you mean about the players fooling themselves. As in I don't actually understand the statement.

A good game is set up for the players to have hero characters and the whole reality of the game bends to that. Call it ''fun'' or ''rule of cool'' or the ''gentleman's agreement'' , but the fact is the DM will alter the reality of the game so things are ''nice'' and ''work out for the players''. For example, the bad guys could very easily kill the characters when they are resting or otherwise at a huge disadvantage all the time...but, of course, most DM's don't do this.

Now the players know that the DM is not doing everything they can, and is doing this for the specific reason of ''fun'' or ''cool'' or ''agreement''. They know, and choose to ignore it...even fool themselves into thinking that it is not happening.



You may argue that "Even if you like the destination, you were still on the train.", but others would ask, "Are there stops that the PC's can get off at?"

No, ''getting off the train'' is saying ''I don't want to play the game and I'm going home.''





4
Plot Points
Site-Based Module
Railroad
3
DM Planning2
Largely Improvised
Generic Campaign
Adventure Path
1
0
Empty Room
Quantum Ogres
Make Stuff Up

0
1
2
3
4

DM Control



Good table. I'd see anything as a ''2'' or less random and can't have a complex plot or story. A plot can't be random, unless your game and world make no sense. And, as per the chart, having the DM make the world react to the players is DM control, you can't use that out.

And ''2 or less'' games are great for simple, casual games where everyone just wants to fight some monsters and toss some dice.

To have a more complex game, you need to go to ''3 plus''.

Now I'm sure most people will say they run games that are ''2'', the generic campaign, as it is right in the middle and ''looks and sounds nice'' to say ''they are in the middle''.

Though I doubt many would run a ''type 2 generic campaign'' if we were to break it down. After all ''type 2 generic campaign '' all ready has a bit of ''non-railroading forced things on the characters'', if would need to move 'things down a number. It does nicely come back to ''railroad or quantum ogre'' (DM P of 0 and DM C of 2 OR DM P of 4 and DM C of 2.)

Any plot needs some events to happen or not happen to advance the plot otherwise you have no plot. This is at least ''slight railroading'' or if you really must avoid the term ''unwilling lineal progression'' or whatever other words you want to use to say ''the players have no choice''.

For example: the plot needs the characters to loose an item or NPC that gets taken by the bad guys. There are only a couple things that can be done:

0. is the DM just adjusts the game reality so the event does not need to happen or not. This stalls the plot, that can't advance, but at least the DM can say they have ''clean hands''.

1. The DM can let the randomness of the game decide things so, if by chance, the event happens or not, then the plot can advance. This can be hugely time consuming and get very boring and repetitive, but again the DM will ''have clean hands''.

2. The DM can ''out rule'' the players. The DM using the rules can string together whatever they need to happen or not happen. This is borderline DM abuse as a DM can make ''anything'' needed for an event, with the only real limit of ''how far they can get the players to go along with it as willing accomplices.''

3. The DM can railroad.

For example: ''The PC's capture an npc mook that needs to escape and tell his boss about the PCs''

1. The DM rolls Escape Artist checks until the npc escapes or has other npc foes attack to free the mook. But, this can get boring and repetitive as the DM ''waits'' for good dice rolls...

2. The DM gives the mook a magic item, template, spell, or whatever that lets them escape ''by the rules''. Again, it's borderline abuse that ''oh, the mook that needs to escape just happened to have a teleport tattoo to escape''. If the players agree it is all good...

3. The Railroad....the NPC will escape (almost) no matter what the PC's do. Or ''oh mook number two escaped and warned the boss''.

0. is ''Well, your characters go back to the tavern and have another drink'' and nothing else happens with that plot...cue next plot.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-19, 07:08 PM
But "Empty Room" lacks all three (and having recently experienced both, as bad as a hardcore railroad is, Empty Room was even more lame!)


Again, I think this is two different issues, and aren't even on the same axis.

Cluedrew
2016-11-19, 07:14 PM
I argue that the best games usually start GM-led ("problems"), become player-led ("attempts"), and result in "Balance".Balancing thing out seems to be the solution to a lot of things.


My fear is that lazy GM's arguing that "at least I'm not railroading", will make Empty Room games more common.
*shudder*Wow... you seem very concerned about this possibility. To which I say, call them out on having nothing ready then.


Railroading: the game has a story and plot that make sense

Sandbox: Random stuff just happens.Are these your premises or your conclusions? Because I honestly am not sure anymore.


Now the players know that the DM is not doing everything they can, and is doing this for the specific reason of ''fun'' or ''cool'' or ''agreement''. They know, and choose to ignore it...even fool themselves into thinking that it is not happening.Oh that. Yes I am entirely aware of that. The GM is not out to kill the players (or shouldn't be) so I don't see an issue with it.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-19, 07:33 PM
This goes back to:

Railroading: the game has a story and plot that make sense

Sandbox: Random stuff just happens.




Yes, yes, we all get that this is how you're trying to redefine the words to serve your own argument, rather than using the words the way they've been used in the gaming community for ages now.

Literally no one else describes a sandbox as "random stuff just happens", and really, this just comes across as you uttering the equivalent of "stuff I don't like is stupid, people who don't like what I like are stupid".


Now, here's how literally everyone other than you uses the terms.

Railroading -- the sequence of events can only proceed exactly as the GM has preordained them, and any actual impact the players have on the course of events is just an illusion; at most their choices determine the minor "how" of their progress from one predetermined encounter/scene to the next. "In short, the GM takes any measure necessary to ensure that there is only one direction the campaign may proceed — his planned direction. This can manifest in any number of imaginable ways; some of them subtle, others ... not so much."

Sandbox -- an developed world/setting, with history, where characters exist and things are going, is presented to the players; the player characters interact with that world and cause, stop, and alter events through their own actions.


You keep saying "random" to describe a "sandbox" -- obviously that word does not mean what you think it means. A well-built, well-run sandbox game will react in a consistent, coherent, and comprehensible way to what the PCs do and say; none of that falls under "random".





Are these your premises or your conclusions? Because I honestly am not sure anymore.


The answer is obviously "both", and that's part of the problem.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-19, 09:10 PM
Now, here's how literally everyone other than you uses the terms.

Railroading -- the sequence of events can only proceed exactly as the GM has preordained them, and any actual impact the players have on the course of events is just an illusion; at most their choices determine the minor "how" of their progress from one predetermined encounter/scene to the next. "In short, the GM takes any measure necessary to ensure that there is only one direction the campaign may proceed — his planned direction. This can manifest in any number of imaginable ways; some of them subtle, others ... not so much."

Sandbox -- an developed world/setting, with history, where characters exist and things are going, is presented to the players; the player characters interact with that world and cause, stop, and alter events through their own actions.

Right, and notice how you, and ''everyone'' is bias? You think railroading is negative so you only say negative stuff about it, you like the sandbox, so it's the greatest thing ever made. You have the railroad DM as the tyrant jerk only, while your sandbox DM is just beyond cool. The railroad game is no fun, but the sandbox is the most fun ever.

But, note your descriptions don't match and don't add up. For example:

1. the sequence of events can only proceed exactly as the GM has preordained them OK, so either the sandbox has no sequence of events(is a random mess) or the sequence of events happens in some other way....but you don't tell us how?

2. and any actual impact the players have on the course of events is just an illusion; at most their choices determine the minor "how" of their progress from one predetermined encounter/scene to the next. So the sandbox players have ''real'' control over the game and can do anything? But it's not like the players are DMs, right? But, somehow, in a way you did not mention they have ''real'' control over the game, but how?

3. there is only one direction the campaign may proceed A railroaded plot has a start and finish...so, a sandbox one does not, right? The players can ''randomly'' just do stuff, but not follow any plot, but if they do follow a plot they can ''somehow'' go in any direction?

4.an developed world/setting, with history, where characters exist and things are going, is presented to the players; the player characters interact with that world and cause, stop, and alter events through their own actions. Well, railroad type games have all this, so how is all of this somehow unique to a sandbox game?

If you have a plot that will advance in a way that makes sense, the DM will need to make it happen. If you want to hide behind words you can call it ''force'' or ''pressure'' or ''lineal progression'' or ''influence'', if you don't want to use the ''R'' word. Even if you try the smoke and mirrors of ''the DM just has the world react to the players'', that is exactly what a railroad plot does...so how is the sandbox way different? It is not?

Unless the DM is the worst kind with the Quantum Ogre: Pc: ''We go to the left'' DM: "and you walk into Encounter #5''.....

RazorChain
2016-11-19, 10:25 PM
Now a more interesting question to me is, why do players put up with railroads?



Myriad of reasons. People can be made to do things against their will in lot of ways. But in case of RPG it's often they follow the person in power, the authority figure, the GM.

The last time I was railroaded was when playing times of troubles (Shadowdale, Tantras, Waterdeep) in Forgotten Realms. Worst adventure I've ever played. Not only did the player characters play second fiddle to three DMPC's but it railroaded so hard that I still go Choo Choo when I think about it.

We the players rebelled, went murderhobo and killed Midnight, Cyric, Kelemvor and Elminster (which left the DM in tears). The idiot who thought it would be a good idea to allow some PC's to play a storyline of a book should never, ever write an adventure module again (See the avatar trilogy, books you should never read)

I think when players realize they have the power to break away from GM railroading them then it is unlikely it happens again. I'm perfectly fine with linear adventures as long as I can buy-in and the GM can deal with a little improvisation.

I remember when I started playing as a kid, the GMs were older and more experienced than me and I saw them as an authority figures and therefore I was easily railroaded. I mean these guys had read THE DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE!!!! They knew all the rules! They knew how to game master...an incredibly complicated thing...almost as complicated as rocket science!

RazorChain
2016-11-19, 10:32 PM
Sandbox -- an developed world/setting, with history, where characters exist and things are going, is presented to the players; the player characters interact with that world and cause, stop, and alter events through their own actions.


You realize that almost roleplaying games are sandboxes. It isn't like the world ceases to exist outside the storyline/plot/adventure.

Thrudd
2016-11-19, 10:33 PM
If you plan a series of events/encounters that the characters will encounter no matter what choices the players make, that is a "railroad". The players have nowhere to go and can't change what will happen, the GM has already decided the order in which things will happen and probably how it will end, too. (maybe they will allow the players to either "win" or "lose" at the end, but that isn't really giving them any choices in the course of the game.)

In this sense, having a "plot" is a "railroad", because a plot is a series of events planned in a particular order from start to finish, like a novel or a film.

This is not a good way to run or play an RPG, because players aren't really "playing" anything, they are just listening to the GM tell a story.

A "scenario" is not a "plot". In a "scenario", there is a specific environment/setting, NPCs with motives, and maybe a catalyzing/opening event caused by those NPCs. The players decide how to react within the scenario and make choices based on their characters' motivations. When the characters take actions, the game rules and the GM's knowledge of the scenario decide what happens next. Players making choices isn't "random", because they are making choices that their characters would make based on the world the characters are experiencing. That's called "role playing".

This is a better way to run and play an RPG, for obvious reasons.

A "sandbox" is a game in which the scenario's boundaries are basically the entire setting. Players are free to have their characters do anything and go anywhere (obviously within the context of the game's rules and premise). The GM likely prepares a lot of material on the world's locations and inhabitants. The direction of the game is dictated almost completely by the motives of the characters. This doesn't mean that nothing happens, nor that it is all random. Events are dictated by the GM based on the game rules and what makes sense for the world and the players make choices according to the motives of their characters (just as in any other RPG scenario).

This is fun if the GM has done their preparation and has lots of things the players will want to do/look for, and the players know what the game is about. This is not so fun if the GM has not prepared or the players don't know what their characters are supposed to be doing. Of course, these qualifiers apply to any sort of game, not just a sandbox.

Whatever the scale of the game's scenario, it is best when players can make meaningful decisions that affect the outcomes for their characters.

Amphetryon
2016-11-19, 10:54 PM
I have known more than one Player, at more than one table, who defined a 'railroad' plot as a series of clearly connected events, without regard for whether those connections were visible before the underlying conflicts were resolved (or exacerbated). To be clear, they were not using 'railroad' as a positive term.

Several of these same Players would call a GM who ran a game where the events the PCs dealt with showed no clear connections 'unprepared.'

In both cases, this was true even at tables where the game was advertised as 'Player-led' rather than 'GM-led.'

Solaris
2016-11-19, 11:02 PM
You realize that almost roleplaying games are sandboxes. It isn't like the world ceases to exist outside the storyline/plot/adventure.

How many roleplaying games have storylines/plots/adventures that are emergent properties of the characters' actions rather than outlined in advance by the DM?
Most roleplaying games really don't have an outside world. It exists as an informed attribute, but there's no tracking or development for significant changes that occur in it as the game proceeds. Things in the world are generally more or less static unless they have something to do with the plotline.

oxybe
2016-11-19, 11:19 PM
Right, and notice how you, and ''everyone'' is bias? You think railroading is negative so you only say negative stuff about it, you like the sandbox, so it's the greatest thing ever made. You have the railroad DM as the tyrant jerk only, while your sandbox DM is just beyond cool. The railroad game is no fun, but the sandbox is the most fun ever.

But, note your descriptions don't match and don't add up. For example:

1. the sequence of events can only proceed exactly as the GM has preordained them OK, so either the sandbox has no sequence of events(is a random mess) or the sequence of events happens in some other way....but you don't tell us how?

2. and any actual impact the players have on the course of events is just an illusion; at most their choices determine the minor "how" of their progress from one predetermined encounter/scene to the next. So the sandbox players have ''real'' control over the game and can do anything? But it's not like the players are DMs, right? But, somehow, in a way you did not mention they have ''real'' control over the game, but how?

3. there is only one direction the campaign may proceed A railroaded plot has a start and finish...so, a sandbox one does not, right? The players can ''randomly'' just do stuff, but not follow any plot, but if they do follow a plot they can ''somehow'' go in any direction?

4.an developed world/setting, with history, where characters exist and things are going, is presented to the players; the player characters interact with that world and cause, stop, and alter events through their own actions. Well, railroad type games have all this, so how is all of this somehow unique to a sandbox game?

If you have a plot that will advance in a way that makes sense, the DM will need to make it happen. If you want to hide behind words you can call it ''force'' or ''pressure'' or ''lineal progression'' or ''influence'', if you don't want to use the ''R'' word. Even if you try the smoke and mirrors of ''the DM just has the world react to the players'', that is exactly what a railroad plot does...so how is the sandbox way different? It is not?

Unless the DM is the worst kind with the Quantum Ogre: Pc: ''We go to the left'' DM: "and you walk into Encounter #5''.....

I'll try to field this one.

1- it's not "preordained" or "random mess": It's "cause and effect".

You setup a scenario, players talk things over and do something you don't expect. You sit back for a bit, think about how the world and NPCs will react to it, and then they do with the consequences that comes with their actions

No sequence or sequence breaking required.

You setup a scenario and leave the players to do as they want with it, with the scenario reacting in a logical manner based on the actions the PCs take.

2- In the end the big secret is that the GM doesn't have any power either. He controls the world, sure, but the players are free to tell him he can sit on it and spin in place while they play something else. His control is only as deep and pervasive as the players want to give him, since they can easily just up and leave for greener pastures.

"No D&D" is better then "bad D&D".

But again, you seem to think the options are preordained or not, which doesn't make sense and entirely overlooks the 3rd option: "NPCs react logically and consistently based on the PCs actions".

Everyone in the game world has their own motivations and it's not like the players are playing Mass Effect and have only a handful of choices they can make: You (a player) are free to play to the NPCs' sensibilities and wants, their fears and loves.

If you're asked to clean up an old keep of bandits and end up blowing the place up, you've done the job, sure, but it's owner might come looking for your blood if he was hoping to use it. on the flipside, the PCs might just usurp the bandit leader and call the keep their own, because they now have a well defensible position & minions under them. They might tell the owner to go find other adventurers because this task is above their pay grade. They might barter with the owner for a better deal or ask a favour he might not have expected them to ask for (or be aware that the can/cannot do said favour).

This is the nature of the sandbox: There is a world of NPCs out there with their own wants and needs. some may want the PCs help, some may want them dead, some may not give 2 figs about the PCs. But the PCs have the choice on how to interact with these NPCs, who will react logically & consistently based on how the interaction goes.

3- If by "randomly do stuff" you mean: "the characters can choose to accept tasks given to them or not", then yes.

If by "randomly do stuff" you mean "the characters are free to try to pursue their desires", then yes.

"if they do follow a plot they can ''somehow'' go in any direction?" the answer is there is no set script or preordained plot in a sandbox.

There is a scenario but how it plays out depends on the PC actions and how the NPCs react to it. There is no pre-set end or middle, just a beginning to setup the scene and then the PCs are left to interact with it as they want.

4- the railroad uses the setting and history as a backdrop, but it's not something the players get to interact with or have agency in furthering. The railroad GM has a very specific story to tell.

In a sandbox, the GM is more akin to a referee while in a railroad, he's a director. The sandbox GM interprets rules and NPC motivations based on PC actions, the railroad GM tells the PCs what their task is and while has some leeway for interpretation, there is a script to follow.

RazorChain
2016-11-20, 12:10 AM
I'll bite!


Right, and notice how you, and ''everyone'' is bias? You think railroading is negative so you only say negative stuff about it, you like the sandbox, so it's the greatest thing ever made. You have the railroad DM as the tyrant jerk only, while your sandbox DM is just beyond cool. The railroad game is no fun, but the sandbox is the most fun ever.

But, note your descriptions don't match and don't add up. For example:

1. the sequence of events can only proceed exactly as the GM has preordained them OK, so either the sandbox has no sequence of events(is a random mess) or the sequence of events happens in some other way....but you don't tell us how?

The thing here is preordained and force. Force means to make someone do something against their will. The PC's start an adventure where they are supposed to kill a dragon. They travel to the dragon cave. The PC's don't want to enter the dragon cave and want to set up a giant ballista that aims at the mouth of the cave and shoot the dragon when he comes out. Even though the PC's have the resources, time and skill to pull this off the GM won't let them and uses force or his GM powers to force the PC's into the cave to fight the dragon. The GM had set up a preordained sequence of events which were
A) Learn about the dragon
B) Travel to the dragon cave
C) Fight the dragon in his cave

In a not railroady game the PC's can decide to:
A) Not travel to the dragon cave and do something else
B) Shoot the dragon with a giant ballista
C) Befriend the dragon or the Paladin makes a bargain and the dragon becomes his special mount.



2. and any actual impact the players have on the course of events is just an illusion; at most their choices determine the minor "how" of their progress from one predetermined encounter/scene to the next. So the sandbox players have ''real'' control over the game and can do anything? But it's not like the players are DMs, right? But, somehow, in a way you did not mention they have ''real'' control over the game, but how?

In most games the GM can and will use smoke and mirrors as a tool to prod the game along. But the real control comes from making decisions. Games don't have to have predetermined encounters/scenes. I once ran a campaign focused on the PC's reclaiming their barony from the evil DreadLords. I had no set encounters/scenes. The only thing I had was a detailed enough world of my making and the only thing that was predetermined was that the DreadLords would send assassins after the PC's to get rid of the rightful heir. The PC's found out how they would reclaim the barony in a way I had never expected. I just made plans as I went along and prepared sessions when I knew where they were going.



3. there is only one direction the campaign may proceed A railroaded plot has a start and finish...so, a sandbox one does not, right? The players can ''randomly'' just do stuff, but not follow any plot, but if they do follow a plot they can ''somehow'' go in any direction?

A non railroaded plot has a finish. Just like in the campaign I mentioned above the goald was predetermined at the start of the game but how the PC's would go about it wasn't determined. Neither by me or them. And yes they totally went in the direction they wanted and I hadn't predicted. Of course the PC's went on adventures that had other plots. They needed men and money but I hadn't made any adventures or plots on how they would do that because I didn't know where they would go.
And NO...I did not just sit there and roll for random encounters.



4.an developed world/setting, with history, where characters exist and things are going, is presented to the players; the player characters interact with that world and cause, stop, and alter events through their own actions. Well, railroad type games have all this, so how is all of this somehow unique to a sandbox game?

It isn't. I do not use the term sandbox....as i essence all RPG's that have detailed settings are sandboxes.



If you have a plot that will advance in a way that makes sense, the DM will need to make it happen. If you want to hide behind words you can call it ''force'' or ''pressure'' or ''lineal progression'' or ''influence'', if you don't want to use the ''R'' word. Even if you try the smoke and mirrors of ''the DM just has the world react to the players'', that is exactly what a railroad plot does...so how is the sandbox way different? It is not?

Unless the DM is the worst kind with the Quantum Ogre: Pc: ''We go to the left'' DM: "and you walk into Encounter #5''.....


All right I'm just going to take example from the campaign I'm running.

So the PC's are in Tir na nÓg, or the otherworld. While there they visit the court of spring and one PC Alma, who is faerie blooded, finds out that the Knight of Winter is dead and the fey are looking for someone to take up the mantle. The PC's bite and are given the task to rescue Sorcha, princess of the court of midnight. If successful Alma will be named the new Knight of Winter. There are two other contestants, so the PC's have to outwit them as well.

Sorcha is being held by the goblin king who intends to marry her.

Now the PC's are free to rescue her in any way they want.

So how did they go about it? They walked straight up to the fort of the gobling king and told the guards that they had been invited to a wedding, Roberto, the face character managed to get them in.

There was a 3 day feast going on before the wedding. One of the other contestants challenged the goblin king to a duel while the PC's were at the feast. The goblin king who is an cornish ogre named Fionnbarr, is mortally wounded in the duel but it doesnt seem to affect him and he kills the contestant.

Alma decides to challenge the gobling king to a duel for the marriage rights, poor Alma didn't know the faerie custom and that the duel was about marriage rights...but time to sort that out later. The duel is set the next day.

Roberto feasts with the goblins, bets one of his ears on that Alma will win the duel and uncovers the fact from a drunken goblin that Fionnbarr is unkillable, he can shrug off all mortal wounds.

Now Alma starts to panic. The others manage to uncover that Fionnbarr doesn't have a heart. Luzio, one of the PC's has been keeping eyes on some guards at a doorway and found out it leads to a treasury. He also observed that the guards left their post when the goblin king fought the last challenger. The PC's hatch a plot and hope for the best.

The next day the duel takes place. As expected the goblins leave their posts at the guarded door to get a good view of the duel. The PC gang sneaks and Johannes lockpicks the door and closes it behind them.

In the meantime Alma wants to stall, she isn't a people person so she makes her intimidation roll and goes on and on how she gonna cut Fionbarr to pieces, cut off his arm and beat him to death with it etc she is clearly inspired by Westleys to the pain speech in Princess Bride.

The rest of the PCs gang sneaks down a staircase and manage to ambush the guards in a guardroom in front of the treasury. A fight ensues and the PC's are victorius.

Meanwhile the duel starts between Alma and the gobling king, Alma figths defensively.

Johannes tries to pick the lock to the treasury, I tell him it's probably his most important roll in the evening. He makes it brilliantly, dodges crossbow bolts from a trap and runs into the room and is stymied to see a locked chest.

Alma is till fighting but she is wounded and has managed to inflict what she would call a mortal wound on the goblin king but he just gloats and keeps on fighting. She is getting desperate.

Johannes starts to pick the lock of the chest, I tell him it's probably his second most important roll of the evening. He makes it brilliantly, opens the chest in a hurry and gets a poisoned needle into his finger. In the chest he sees gold and jewels, a live goose, couple of daggers, a golden egg and a normal egg. He screams "I THROW THE NORMAL EGG AT THE WALL". SPLAT....the egg cracks and a heart gets plastered on the wall. The players cheer. Then Johannes fails his health check and faints because of the poison.

Alma is in a really bad shape when she lands a blow on the gobling king and he suddenly clutches his heart and falls down.

Johannes asks me if he can roll his poison skill to identify the poison before he falls unconcious, I agree and ask him to throw behind my screen so he can't see. He criticly fails, I tell him he's going to die. End of session.


Now the PC's could have solved this in lot of ways, they have an obstacle but come up with the solution. Probably the easiest would have been sneak/talk themselves into the wedding feast and snatch Sorcha away during the night. They could have tried to break into the treasury during the night and killed the gobling king that way without challenging him to a duel. Or they could just have ignored the plot altogheter.

How did I prepare the plot: Gobling king abducts the princess of the court of midnight, intends to marry her. Can't be killed because he has stored his heart in an egg.

RazorChain
2016-11-20, 12:35 AM
How many roleplaying games have storylines/plots/adventures that are emergent properties of the characters' actions rather than outlined in advance by the DM?

It is group dependent not system dependent. I don't have any statistic because there are none. I can only relate personal experience and that is just shy of 30 years in 3 different countries with over dozen GM's and dozens of players.


Most roleplaying games really don't have an outside world. It exists as an informed attribute, but there's no tracking or development for significant changes that occur in it as the game proceeds. Things in the world are generally more or less static unless they have something to do with the plotline.

Of course it doesn't change, it's a fricking book. It has to have a static start, books don't change on whim it is the player and GM's place to change things as things proceed. I once killed Elminster in the Forgotten Realms...that changed a lot....in essence my group ruined the Avatar war and changed the course of history in the Forgotten Realms and that was in one of the most railroady adventures of all time, an adventure module based on a book!

I also destroyed the whole multiverse in Amber....by a mistake. How is that for a change? And that didn't even have anything to do with the plotline....at all.

2D8HP
2016-11-20, 01:22 AM
Balancing thing out seems to be the solution to a lot of things.Instead of GM as sole author or stopwatch yes.


Empty Room

Wow... you seem very concerned about this possibility. Yes besides being an exceedingly boring gaming experience, I worry that I had a foretaste, and that with the right buzzwords the lameness will spread, like the now common practice of DM's requiring a "back-story" as audition has.

To which I say, call them out on having nothing ready.Until they too went silent, some other party members seemed to be enjoying themselves sharing their PC's back-stories and bantering, it was only when they too went mute, the DM complained that "I don't take hints very well", and there was a mass player exodus that I realized that I wasn't alone in finding nothing engaging about the experience.

Again, I think this is two different issues, and aren't even on the same axis.I'm actually reconsidering the "axis", and I'm thinking the lameness of the feeling that your PC is being "railroaded", or of being in an "empty room" world can sometimes spring from the same source.
@Segev's insightful post clues us in:

I'd argue that "empty room" is likewise more positively correlated with railroading than negatively. The more stringent the rails, the more likely there is to be nothing but "empty room" outside of view of them. Or worse, even a millimeter off of them....

.....It does happen. It's a hallmark of one of two things: a grossly underprepared GM, or a railroad where the PCs balked at the rails and determinedly struck out away from them (into territory where the GM has nothing prepared and is unwilling or unable to improvise nor to end the session while he plans for next time).
When DM's who are unable or unwilling to improvise only prepare enough for one storyline it may lead to "express-line railroading" by an aggressive GM, or it may lead to "empty room" by a passive-aggressive GM when PC's leave the tracks.
A lot of hard feelings could be avoided by the GM just dropping the curtain and saying, "Sorry guys I just don't have anything else prepared" can we stop now, or can you get back on the rails?".
I know that in a recent "Storm Kings Thunder" session, instead of having an avalanche say come from nowhere, or Barovia style "mists" to block our path, our DM just said, "Um sorry, but your just too weak for that encounter".
Meta?
Yes, but better than some alternatives.

Segev
2016-11-20, 01:47 AM
Darth_Ultron, is it "bias" for people to define "sexism" as discriminating in behavior, expectations, and/or consequences based on the subject's sex? Is that people just using abiase ddefinition of "sexism" because they want sexism to be a bad thing, so somebody who defines "sexism" to be any method of judging a person other than randomly generating your judgment is the only unbiased person amd therefore using "sexism" correctly? And so, when he says he uses sexism to grade the performance of his employees, he is doing it right and all the people who act horrified are jerks who are unfairly biased against sexism and just want all judgments made at random?



Because that' the level of pretending a word meams something that nobody else agrees it does to which you are resorting.

WrittenInBlood
2016-11-20, 02:04 AM
Please, somebody just call the Rudisplorkers Guild and lay an end to this madness.

PairO'Dice Lost
2016-11-20, 02:27 AM
Any plot needs some events to happen or not happen to advance the plot otherwise you have no plot.

Here you are, once again, conflating a plot with the plot. If as the DM you have decided on the plot for a game and nothing is going to change it in the slightest come Baator or high water, it's a railroad. If you have decided on a plot for the game, but it can be changed either by your decisions, the players' decisions, the roll of the dice, or something else, it's not a railroad.

Take Star Wars, for example. Everyone knows that plot: Baaahhh da da dah opening theme, "It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base..." etc., a Star Destroyer is chasing Princess Leia's (one of the PCs) ship, C-3P0 and R2-D2 (PCs number 2 and 3) banter, her ship is disabled and tractor-beamed in, stormtroopers blast their way into the ship, the Rebels make a fighting retreat, Leia meets with R2 in a side corridor while the stormtroopers search for her, Leia sneaks off, R2 tells 3P0 he has a mission, R2 goes out to distract the stormtroopers while Leia launches off in an escape pod--

Hold on, uh, Leia didn't take an escape pod? She sent R2 and 3P0 instead and didn't even try to escape herself? But she has to escape to advance the plot! Otherwise you have no plot! How can she go down to Tattooine, meet up with Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi (PCs 4 and 5), and find Han Solo (PC 6) so they can all get the Death Star plans to the Rebels and figure out how to destroy it if she doesn't take an escape pod!?

Oh, she thought it would be dumb to use an escape pod because it would make her an obvious target, that's why she was asking about life-form scanners earlier in the session. Uh...shoot. Well, she failed the Reflex save against that stun bolt, she's getting captured for sure, looks like she's sitting out for the next few sessions, so--wait! R2-D2 and C-3P0 have a shared backstory, and so do Luke and Obi-Wan...why don't we have Leia's player roll up a partner for Han that she can play in the meantime? (Don't worry if you can't figure out what personality you want to portray, Ms. Leia's Player, we'll just say this "Chewbacca" guy--cool name, by the way--can't speak Basic for now and figure that out later.)

Well, that takes care of getting the party together, so they could go off to meet with Bail Organa as planned to examine the Death Star plans, send in some spies to scout out the Death Star's layout and defenses, and pass that information on to the Rebels...but Leia's player wants to get back to playing her and Luke's player wants to rescue Leia, so they just want to hand off the plans and head back to Tattooine to save her...but Obi-Wan's player feels that General Kenobi wouldn't sacrifice the chance to recon the Death Star for just one person, even the Princess, and doesn't trust that the NPCs can handle it...hmm. Ooh, I know! Instead of the Death Star blowing up Dantooine, let's say it blows up Alderaan instead, so Bail is gone and the party gets tractor-beamed into the Death Star! And it did that because Leia was taken to the Death Star for interrogation, so we can turn the scouting mission into a rescue mission, just need to move some encounters around. That way everyone gets what they want, Luke rescuing Leia and Obi-Wan staying in-character.

So, the Death Star rescue mission goes off without a hitch. Well, mostly; Obi-Wan's character decides he likes the way Chewie is developing and isn't liking his own character as much, so he volunteers to go make a heroic sacrifice so he can take over playing Chewie when Chewie's player goes back to playing Leia. So, anyway, they escape, head back to Yavin IV to--wait, dammit, the Imperials were supposed to follow the Rebel scouts who were looking into Dantooine's destruction back to their base, but Alderaan got blown up instead. Uh...I guess Tarkin will have to put a tracking beacon on the Falcon instead, so let's throw in a couple random encounters with stormtroopers to delay the party to give him time to do that, and now we're all set.

Blah blah blah, Death Star goes boom, Luke, Han, and Leia get medals for blowing up the--whoops, sorry buddy, Luke, Han, and Chewie get medals, Leia gets to hand them out 'cause she didn't join in the assault like she was supposed to. Anyway, adventure over, roll credits!


Now, in this scenario, the planned plot of Star Wars (hypothetical as it may have been) didn't unfold as planned, because the players threw a wrench in the works, as players tend to do, by doing something the GM didn't foresee. And yet, there was definitely a plot; turns out that what transpired was simply one of many possibly plots that could have taken place with those characters in that scenario--and the players, looking back on it, have no way of knowing whether this was the plot that was intended the whole time unless they ask him about that.

Had it been a railroad, they'd have known that the instant they tried to do something unplanned; the DM didn't say "Welp, Leia got captured 5 minutes into the session, there's no way out of this, pack it in, we're done for the night" or "Nope, Leia, sorry, you can't do that, the plot requires you to use the escape pod." Instead, the DM adjusted, by re-purposing some prepared material and by improvising some new material, and the players helped drive things by creating new characters that weren't planned for and making decisions that shaped the outcome of the game into a perfectly coherent plot, no railroading required.

Lorsa
2016-11-20, 07:38 AM
I was thinking of railroading and this "empty room" thing, and how people said it was two very different things, only loosely connected in a multidimensional space, and how I agreed with it.

Then I thought that those two are actually a lot more connected than what is seen at first impression. In a way, they ARE two failure states of the same thing.

In a railroading scenario, the GM presents fake problems/situations. In the above example, city guards come to capture the PCs, so they can fight in an arena. The real situation in this case would be the arena fight. This is where the GM will allow the players to win or loose.

However, from a player's perspective, city guards arriving to arrest their characters is a real problem. Therefore, they will approach it as such, and try to resist or fight in any way possible. Since the GM didn't actually mean for this to be a solvable problem, they will not allow it to end in any other way than with the PCs captured.

So, if railroading is the GM presenting fake problems, the "empty room" is the GM failing to present any problems at all.

In a way, they are both thus similar, the GM is failing to present a proper situation. For a game to be good, there has to be some situations presented to the players, which they can react to, problems they can solve. Failing to do so, either by not presenting any situations at all, or by presenting fake situations, will both provide a poor game. In this sense, railroading and empty room is very similar.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-20, 09:00 AM
You realize that almost roleplaying games are sandboxes. It isn't like the world ceases to exist outside the storyline/plot/adventure.

Based on observation and reading discussions like these, it's easy to see the "worlds" of quite a few campaigns (and fictional works) just stopping when the PCs aren't there.

One gets the impression of an entire world set up like the stereotypical "Old West" movie set, in which the buildings look real on film, but if you look behind the buildings, most of them are just a one-dimensional facades held up by a few bracing boards. The "captured princess" and the "evil overlord" are probably having tea until word comes that the PCs have made it into the fortress via the "secret" entrance, then it's "Places everyone!" (Of course, maybe this impression is reinforced by the way said games (and fiction) tend to fall back on the same old tired tropes.)

And this is how a an actual railroad, and an "empty room", are actually two versions of the same thing -- both represent an unwillingness or inability to do the hard worldbuilding necessary to have a living, breathing "reality" that reacts to the PCs in a coherent, consistent, manner.



I was thinking of railroading and this "empty room" thing, and how people said it was two very different things, only loosely connected in a multidimensional space, and how I agreed with it.

Then I thought that those two are actually a lot more connected than what is seen at first impression. In a way, they ARE two failure states of the same thing.

In a railroading scenario, the GM presents fake problems/situations. In the above example, city guards come to capture the PCs, so they can fight in an arena. The real situation in this case would be the arena fight. This is where the GM will allow the players to win or loose.

However, from a player's perspective, city guards arriving to arrest their characters is a real problem. Therefore, they will approach it as such, and try to resist or fight in any way possible. Since the GM didn't actually mean for this to be a solvable problem, they will not allow it to end in any other way than with the PCs captured.

So, if railroading is the GM presenting fake problems, the "empty room" is the GM failing to present any problems at all.

In a way, they are both thus similar, the GM is failing to present a proper situation. For a game to be good, there has to be some situations presented to the players, which they can react to, problems they can solve. Failing to do so, either by not presenting any situations at all, or by presenting fake situations, will both provide a poor game. In this sense, railroading and empty room is very similar.

Well said.

My comment was that "railroading" and "empty room" were not the two ends of the same axis, but rather the extreme ends of two different axes (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/axis?) that are only tangential. Those ends might actually be very close to each other in a multidimensional breakdown of the various axes (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/axis?) along which RPGs might be conceptually plotted.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-20, 09:21 AM
Here you are, once again, conflating a plot with the plot. If as the DM you have decided on the plot for a game and nothing is going to change it in the slightest come Baator or high water, it's a railroad. If you have decided on a plot for the game, but it can be changed either by your decisions, the players' decisions, the roll of the dice, or something else, it's not a railroad.


Take Star Wars, for example. Everyone knows that plot: Baaahhh da da dah opening theme, "It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base..." etc., a Star Destroyer is chasing Princess Leia's (one of the PCs) ship, C-3P0 and R2-D2 (PCs number 2 and 3) banter, her ship is disabled and tractor-beamed in, stormtroopers blast their way into the ship, the Rebels make a fighting retreat, Leia meets with R2 in a side corridor while the stormtroopers search for her, Leia sneaks off, R2 tells 3P0 he has a mission, R2 goes out to distract the stormtroopers while Leia launches off in an escape pod--

Hold on, uh, Leia didn't take an escape pod? She sent R2 and 3P0 instead and didn't even try to escape herself? But she has to escape to advance the plot! Otherwise you have no plot! How can she go down to Tattooine, meet up with Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi (PCs 4 and 5), and find Han Solo (PC 6) so they can all get the Death Star plans to the Rebels and figure out how to destroy it if she doesn't take an escape pod!?

Oh, she thought it would be dumb to use an escape pod because it would make her an obvious target, that's why she was asking about life-form scanners earlier in the session. Uh...shoot. Well, she failed the Reflex save against that stun bolt, she's getting captured for sure, looks like she's sitting out for the next few sessions, so--wait! R2-D2 and C-3P0 have a shared backstory, and so do Luke and Obi-Wan...why don't we have Leia's player roll up a partner for Han that she can play in the meantime? (Don't worry if you can't figure out what personality you want to portray, Ms. Leia's Player, we'll just say this "Chewbacca" guy--cool name, by the way--can't speak Basic for now and figure that out later.)

Well, that takes care of getting the party together, so they could go off to meet with Bail Organa as planned to examine the Death Star plans, send in some spies to scout out the Death Star's layout and defenses, and pass that information on to the Rebels...but Leia's player wants to get back to playing her and Luke's player wants to rescue Leia, so they just want to hand off the plans and head back to Tattooine to save her...but Obi-Wan's player feels that General Kenobi wouldn't sacrifice the chance to recon the Death Star for just one person, even the Princess, and doesn't trust that the NPCs can handle it...hmm. Ooh, I know! Instead of the Death Star blowing up Dantooine, let's say it blows up Alderaan instead, so Bail is gone and the party gets tractor-beamed into the Death Star! And it did that because Leia was taken to the Death Star for interrogation, so we can turn the scouting mission into a rescue mission, just need to move some encounters around. That way everyone gets what they want, Luke rescuing Leia and Obi-Wan staying in-character.

So, the Death Star rescue mission goes off without a hitch. Well, mostly; Obi-Wan's character decides he likes the way Chewie is developing and isn't liking his own character as much, so he volunteers to go make a heroic sacrifice so he can take over playing Chewie when Chewie's player goes back to playing Leia. So, anyway, they escape, head back to Yavin IV to--wait, dammit, the Imperials were supposed to follow the Rebel scouts who were looking into Dantooine's destruction back to their base, but Alderaan got blown up instead. Uh...I guess Tarkin will have to put a tracking beacon on the Falcon instead, so let's throw in a couple random encounters with stormtroopers to delay the party to give him time to do that, and now we're all set.

Blah blah blah, Death Star goes boom, Luke, Han, and Leia get medals for blowing up the--whoops, sorry buddy, Luke, Han, and Chewie get medals, Leia gets to hand them out 'cause she didn't join in the assault like she was supposed to. Anyway, adventure over, roll credits!


Now, in this scenario, the planned plot of Star Wars (hypothetical as it may have been) didn't unfold as planned, because the players threw a wrench in the works, as players tend to do, by doing something the GM didn't foresee. And yet, there was definitely a plot; turns out that what transpired was simply one of many possibly plots that could have taken place with those characters in that scenario--and the players, looking back on it, have no way of knowing whether this was the plot that was intended the whole time unless they ask him about that.

Had it been a railroad, they'd have known that the instant they tried to do something unplanned; the DM didn't say "Welp, Leia got captured 5 minutes into the session, there's no way out of this, pack it in, we're done for the night" or "Nope, Leia, sorry, you can't do that, the plot requires you to use the escape pod." Instead, the DM adjusted, by re-purposing some prepared material and by improvising some new material, and the players helped drive things by creating new characters that weren't planned for and making decisions that shaped the outcome of the game into a perfectly coherent plot, no railroading required.


The breakdown does appear to be based on an unwillingness to acknowledge the difference between THE preordained plot, and A plot that results from the interacting decisions of the PCs and NPCs over the course of the campaign. Somehow, the absence of THE plot as determined by the GM, is taken as an absence of ANY plot at all (thus the "random" nonsense).

IDK, maybe if a GM had had the worst luck ever with players, and had nothing but people who sit around waiting to be lead by the hand, that GM would think that without strict GM guidance, the game would go nowhere. Or maybe the attitude that only strict guidance makes for an enjoyable game has driven players to not bother trying to make anything happen on their own.


Excellent example, BTW.




I'll try to field this one.

1- it's not "preordained" or "random mess": It's "cause and effect".

You setup a scenario, players talk things over and do something you don't expect. You sit back for a bit, think about how the world and NPCs will react to it, and then they do with the consequences that comes with their actions

No sequence or sequence breaking required.

You setup a scenario and leave the players to do as they want with it, with the scenario reacting in a logical manner based on the actions the PCs take.

2- In the end the big secret is that the GM doesn't have any power either. He controls the world, sure, but the players are free to tell him he can sit on it and spin in place while they play something else. His control is only as deep and pervasive as the players want to give him, since they can easily just up and leave for greener pastures.

"No D&D" is better then "bad D&D".

But again, you seem to think the options are preordained or not, which doesn't make sense and entirely overlooks the 3rd option: "NPCs react logically and consistently based on the PCs actions".

Everyone in the game world has their own motivations and it's not like the players are playing Mass Effect and have only a handful of choices they can make: You (a player) are free to play to the NPCs' sensibilities and wants, their fears and loves.

If you're asked to clean up an old keep of bandits and end up blowing the place up, you've done the job, sure, but it's owner might come looking for your blood if he was hoping to use it. on the flipside, the PCs might just usurp the bandit leader and call the keep their own, because they now have a well defensible position & minions under them. They might tell the owner to go find other adventurers because this task is above their pay grade. They might barter with the owner for a better deal or ask a favour he might not have expected them to ask for (or be aware that the can/cannot do said favour).

This is the nature of the sandbox: There is a world of NPCs out there with their own wants and needs. some may want the PCs help, some may want them dead, some may not give 2 figs about the PCs. But the PCs have the choice on how to interact with these NPCs, who will react logically & consistently based on how the interaction goes.

3- If by "randomly do stuff" you mean: "the characters can choose to accept tasks given to them or not", then yes.

If by "randomly do stuff" you mean "the characters are free to try to pursue their desires", then yes.

"if they do follow a plot they can ''somehow'' go in any direction?" the answer is there is no set script or preordained plot in a sandbox.

There is a scenario but how it plays out depends on the PC actions and how the NPCs react to it. There is no pre-set end or middle, just a beginning to setup the scene and then the PCs are left to interact with it as they want.

4- the railroad uses the setting and history as a backdrop, but it's not something the players get to interact with or have agency in furthering. The railroad GM has a very specific story to tell.

In a sandbox, the GM is more akin to a referee while in a railroad, he's a director. The sandbox GM interprets rules and NPC motivations based on PC actions, the railroad GM tells the PCs what their task is and while has some leeway for interpretation, there is a script to follow.

Precisely -- not only does DU's argument rely on a false definition of "railroad", it then proceeds to invoke a false choice of "railroad" or "total randomness".

It's an argument that tries to present the only alternatives as "strong and unrelenting GM control" or "total chaos" -- and where it doesn't ignore the possibility of cause and effect in a "living setting", it tries to subsume cause and effect into that false definition of "railroad".

Cluedrew
2016-11-20, 09:23 AM
You know one thing I do enjoy about Darth Ultron's arguments is the array of carefully constructed counter agreements people make in response. And the occasional surprising insight from Darth Ultron. I had my own counter points but they just boil down to "player initiative and character action", everyone else covered that (and more) pretty well.

2D8HP
2016-11-20, 09:40 AM
I was thinking of railroading and this "empty room" thing,.....

.....Then I thought that those two are actually a lot more connected than what is seen at first impression. Yeah, when we think of "railroading" as the GM demanding total control of both the world and PC actions, and "empty room" as a GM not bothering to control anything, than "railroad" and "empty room" seem opposites.
But if instead we think in terms of how many stories and variations of stories are possible, multiple (fishtank or sandbox), singular (railroad), or empty room (PC actions or nothing because there's no real world), than "railroad" and "empty room" look closer.
In a "railroad" the GM refuses to accept any meaningful player content (what actions the PC attempts), in an "empty room" the GM refuses to deliver any meaniful content (a world beyond the PC's actions).
Usually we think of the "railroad" GM as being so in love with a story they've imagined, that they force the PC's back onto the rails, and an "empty room" GM as one who thinks the PC's should provide all of the story.
But, especially when the GM is using a pre-gen adventure "path", if we instead think of a GM as being unable or unwilling to create any new content, than we realize that "railroad" and "empty room" are close.

Quertus
2016-11-20, 09:41 AM
I think a flip side of the No Myth stuff is that deep gameplay (as opposed to just story) is created from promises rather than events. That is, flipping something from unknown to known may create the sequence of events that happened and the corresponding story, but the interesting stuff is when players know (or believe) that the result of the flip can be made to go a certain way. If the game is taking place very close to the edge of what anyone at the table knows or has an idea about, there's very little for the players to think about or plan because things can quickly become arbitrary. But of course, the GM pre-planning every detail doesn't actually mean the players have that information either, if it isn't communicated (so it might as well be an unknown).

Promises bridge the gap - the GM or rules communicating 'if you do this, then this is what will happen'. That is, rather than saying 'the details of the world are this way', by saying 'this is the method I will use to decide the unknown details' the players can then attempt to figure out what to do to attain a given outcome.

When I say 'unknown details' I don't necessarily mean 'how many guards are in the shop?' - it could be stuff even at the level of 'what happens if I try to stab this guard?'. But in some games it actually is stuff like 'how many guards are in the shop?'. Promises can be mechanics ('roll to hit, compare to AC, inflict damage') but they can also take the form of information-gathering abilities possessed by the characters ('I use my divination to figure out what will happen if we enter through the front door') or even meta-game constructs ('GM: I promise I won't punish players for improvising or trying rule-of-cool stuff')

A promise also doesn't have to be a definite answer, it doesn't have to solidify a specific detail, it just has to give the players a way of thinking about what might happen.

Describing rules as promises that 'if you do this, then this is what will happen' explains a decent chunk of my gaming preferences.

I like planning. There little point in planning if only the McGuffin of Fate will have any effect. Similarly, there's no point in planning if any action will be equally likely to succeed.

Actually, I take that back. If you tell us ahead of time whether we succeed or fail, at least I'd get to narrate how we succeeded or failed. :smalltongue:

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-20, 10:05 AM
I think a flip side of the No Myth stuff is that deep gameplay (as opposed to just story) is created from promises rather than events. That is, flipping something from unknown to known may create the sequence of events that happened and the corresponding story, but the interesting stuff is when players know (or believe) that the result of the flip can be made to go a certain way. If the game is taking place very close to the edge of what anyone at the table knows or has an idea about, there's very little for the players to think about or plan because things can quickly become arbitrary. But of course, the GM pre-planning every detail doesn't actually mean the players have that information either, if it isn't communicated (so it might as well be an unknown).

Promises bridge the gap - the GM or rules communicating 'if you do this, then this is what will happen'. That is, rather than saying 'the details of the world are this way', by saying 'this is the method I will use to decide the unknown details' the players can then attempt to figure out what to do to attain a given outcome.

When I say 'unknown details' I don't necessarily mean 'how many guards are in the shop?' - it could be stuff even at the level of 'what happens if I try to stab this guard?'. But in some games it actually is stuff like 'how many guards are in the shop?'. Promises can be mechanics ('roll to hit, compare to AC, inflict damage') but they can also take the form of information-gathering abilities possessed by the characters ('I use my divination to figure out what will happen if we enter through the front door') or even meta-game constructs ('GM: I promise I won't punish players for improvising or trying rule-of-cool stuff')

A promise also doesn't have to be a definite answer, it doesn't have to solidify a specific detail, it just has to give the players a way of thinking about what might happen.


Sorry I missed this when it was first posted.

This idea of "promises", to me, goes back to something I've posted (maybe even ranted) about before -- that both the setting, and the rules, need to be coherent and consistent. If I do these sort of things, I can expect those sorts of results. And the rules and setting need to make the same sorts of promises; if the setting promises X but the rules promise Y, that creates a dissonance. And yes, dissonance is bad.

This is part of why I don't care for fiction (or games that attempt to emulate that fiction) that rely not on cause and effect, not on probability of outcomes, not on the natural progression of events, but rather on contrived genre conventions and tropes and themes. Things "just happen" or are contrived to happen, because that's what's expected in the genre, or for "moral reasons", or to serve a theme, or whatever. Games that have mechanics designed to emulate this sort of contrivance make me want to pull my hair out.


It also ties back into the ongoing discussion here in that if the rules and setting are based in cause and effect, if outcomes proceed from actions, if NPCs react as "living" entities to the actions of the PCs, then there's this whole space of possible games that are neither "railroad" nor "just random stuff". Cause and effect is not random, AND it's not preordained.

2D8HP
2016-11-20, 11:57 AM
Games that have mechanics designed to emulate this sort of contrivance make me want to pull my hair out. What's caused my recent hair and teeth loss (from pulling out my hair and grinding my teeth), is the now common practice of DM's requiring a "back-story" as an audition to play.

When I think back to some recent incidents of my "noticing the rails", it's because following the tracks of the "adventure path" just didn't make sense for my PC's given my PC's back-stories that the DM's demanded and accepted.

Similarly, a big part of my frustration at finding my PC in an "empty room", is because the DM demanded a back-story to "play" in it.

In the old days we didn't have "adventure paths", we had "dungeon" locations, so the only "rails" were to the Dungeon which we could leave, and we didn't have to write no stinking back-story neither dagnabbit!

Since the "back-story" serves no useful purpose on a "railroad" anyway (just hand me the motivation to ride the track then!), why have them?

One GM gave the clue, "If I have to GM, I want some entertainment too".

It may be too new and radical, and just be crazy ravings from an age addled mind, but I think I have an idea of a different way to do things.

For an "adventure path" keep the railroad, but have it go to a location which I will nickname a Dungeon. Maybe even have multiple "dungeons" that have entrances and exits that PC's may or may not use so they don't feel "on the tracks".

To avoid "Empty Rooms", fill these "dungeons" with challenges that I will nickname "monsters and traps", and also rewards that I will nickname "treasure".

Then so that the PC's will have a motivation to "explore Dungeons", the back-stories shall be "found a map to the Dungeon, wants to get some of the treasure inside".

But if every PC has that as their back-story however shall the GM decide who has the privilege to play if they don't hold back-story auditions?

Well.... they could try admitting the first player to submit a Fighter (it's purely a coincidence that I usually play a Fighter, I promise), then they admit the first player to submit one of those snooty Magic-Users a Spell-caster, then admit the first player to submit a Thief Rogue, and if the GM wants a bigger party than that first come first serve.

While I know that no one GM's a game like that, for some reason I have an instinct that if they did, it just may result in the most awesomely fun game ever!

Your welcome.
And put a Dragon in the lowest level, dagnabbit!

Segev
2016-11-20, 12:18 PM
"Backstory" is a first step towards what most GMs probably want but don't quite realize they are looking for: concept and personality. The reason to hold "auditions" is to make sure you don't let in the paladin and the axe crazy assassin and the sociopathic made with the too pure to swing a mace cleric. Which could happen with "first com first serve."

Solaris
2016-11-20, 01:46 PM
Of course it doesn't change, it's a fricking book. It has to have a static start, books don't change on whim it is the player and GM's place to change things as things proceed. I once killed Elminster in the Forgotten Realms...that changed a lot....in essence my group ruined the Avatar war and changed the course of history in the Forgotten Realms and that was in one of the most railroady adventures of all time, an adventure module based on a book!

You're missing the point. I mean, yes, that's related, but that's not the point.
How many groups have you been in where things changed outside of the players' view? How likely do you think it is that a DM will devote time and effort to such an exercise?


I also destroyed the whole multiverse in Amber....by a mistake. How is that for a change? And that didn't even have anything to do with the plotline....at all.

As a player, or as a DM?
Either way, it helps to remember that players have a role in writing the plotline of an RPG... unless they're on a railroad.

2D8HP
2016-11-20, 01:47 PM
"Backstory" is a first step towards.... While I can see there purpose in an "empty room", in which the GM wants the players to provide all the content of the "World", how does a PC's concept and personality matter if the GM is just going to insist on PC actions that contradict those concepts and personalities anyway?
Besides there wanting to read some very short stories, it's increasingly clear to me that these "back-stories" are similar to so many employers who insist on a college diploma no matter what the field of study, and they serve the same purpose, just a way to clear the field.

I will give you an example, that while only a slight railroad, is a recent one:

(From my PC's back-story)
"When Rolen.came out of the woods after leaving the devastation of his community, hungry, homeless and weary, Gundren Rockseeker the Dwarf took pity on him and showed him the ways of what are to Rolen "the Big City" (actually small towns). Since then there is nothing Rolen wouldn't do for Gundren"

(When my PC tried to go rescue Gundren instead of a different NPC)
DM:
"I don't remember seeing anything in anyone's background that makes Gundren any more than an employer to you all. So not sure there is any IC reason why any of you would think it more important to find him than to rescue the human. Either way there is someone being held, with whom you have a working relationship."

Me:
"Um, it's in the back-story you had me submit".

DM:
Oh yeah, I was having trouble understanding Rolen's urgency. Well ignore that, and go along with the adventure

:furious:

21st Century "role-playing" increasingly" just puzzles me.

Solaris
2016-11-20, 02:25 PM
21st Century "role-playing" increasingly" just puzzles me.

Oh, I don't know about that.
Bad DMs and sociopaths have been around since the get-go.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-20, 03:18 PM
This is not a good way to run or play an RPG, because players aren't really "playing" anything, they are just listening to the GM tell a story.

The problem is people see railroading bad as they are only thinking of the extreme of the jerk DM. It's like saying anything is bad, because of the actions of a few.

The simple fact is most RPG's (not all) are the DM telling the story. One of the big, main jobs of the DM is as Storyteller.



A "scenario" is not a "plot". In a "scenario", there is a specific environment/setting, NPCs with motives, and maybe a catalyzing/opening event caused by those NPCs. The players decide how to react within the scenario and make choices based on their characters' motivations. When the characters take actions, the game rules and the GM's knowledge of the scenario decide what happens next. Players making choices isn't "random", because they are making choices that their characters would make based on the world the characters are experiencing. That's called "role playing".

This is role playing, for all most all games....even railroad type games. See the part where you say ''the DM decides what happens next'' : that is the railroading part. And sure you can call what you start with for the first couple seconds of a game ''a scenario'', but as soon as anything happens or there is a ''reaction'' you have a plot and a railroad.



Whatever the scale of the game's scenario, it is best when players can make meaningful decisions that affect the outcomes for their characters.

This sounds great, but it does not really have any meaning



1- You setup a scenario and leave the players to do as they want with it, with the scenario reacting in a logical manner based on the actions the PCs take.

What your describing is known as ''a plot''



2- In the end the big secret is that the GM doesn't have any power either. He controls the world, sure, but the players are free to tell him he can sit on it and spin in place while they play something else. His control is only as deep and pervasive as the players want to give him, since they can easily just up and leave for greener pastures.

Ok, players can leave? Not a big deal.



This is the nature of the sandbox: There is a world of NPCs out there with their own wants and needs. some may want the PCs help, some may want them dead, some may not give 2 figs about the PCs. But the PCs have the choice on how to interact with these NPCs, who will react logically & consistently based on how the interaction goes.

Yea agian your talking about a ''plot'' or more accurately ''lots of plots''



3-"if they do follow a plot they can ''somehow'' go in any direction?" the answer is there is no set script or preordained plot in a sandbox.

Random stuff happens in a sandbox, everyone agrees here, I think



There is a scenario but how it plays out depends on the PC actions and how the NPCs react to it. There is no pre-set end or middle, just a beginning to setup the scene and then the PCs are left to interact with it as they want.

Again a ''scenario'' becomes ''a plot'' once anything happens to advance it forward. Like say the characters are just pretending to drink in a sandbox tavern. Then the DM says ''a purple worm is heading towards town!'' and the PC's choose to act....cue the start of the Plot Story: The Worm of Wildwood. Act one: is nice and simple: stop the worm. The PC's are free to try anything they can do within reason and the rules. The Pc's defeat the worm and the middle act two starts: why did the worm attack and where did it come from? The third act is: defeat the cult of the worm. A nice simple plot, but it is a plot.




4- the railroad uses the setting and history as a backdrop, but it's not something the players get to interact with or have agency in furthering. The railroad GM has a very specific story to tell.

In a sandbox, the GM is more akin to a referee while in a railroad, he's a director. The sandbox GM interprets rules and NPC motivations based on PC actions, the railroad GM tells the PCs what their task is and while has some leeway for interpretation, there is a script to follow.

So..using the Worm plot....a railraod DM ''tells'' the Pcs they ''must'' stop the worm from destroying the town...and the sandbox DM just says ''there is a worm eating the town, do whatever you want." Lets say both groups fight and kill the worm. The railroad DM has the mayor ask for help after the worm attack..railroad plot as the Pc's ''must'' stop the cult of the worm. The sandbox DM just sits back and says ''whatever you guys want to do, lets do it''....but if the Sandbox DM ''improvises'' that the mayor will ''react'' by asking the Pc's for help...that is not railroading, right?

Cluedrew
2016-11-20, 05:20 PM
21st Century "role-playing" increasingly" just puzzles me.I'll let you in on a secret. This is not a 21th century phenomenon, there is no new radical philosophy behind this nor is it the latest style of game. It called doing a bad job and it has been around forever if not longer. I would direct you towards one of the bad player/GM threads but we don't have an active one right now. I think. Which I think is a good sign but does mean we don't have the venting grounds/support group/whatever you want from it they provided.

Err... that may have come off as me belittling your bad time. I don't mean to, I'm sure (from your actions) it was an unpleasant time. I just mean to say that I don't believe there is any great significance beyond that you had a bad game. Or games, is this the same game?


The problem is people see railroading bad as they are only thinking of the extreme of the jerk DM. It's like saying anything is bad, because of the actions of a few.No, it is like saying something is bad because it is by definition bad*.

Anyways, I think this particular sub-topic is finished.

* I acknowledge the possibility of corner cases where it is not bad, but I'm not even sure about those.

Segev
2016-11-20, 05:42 PM
While I can see there purpose in an "empty room", in which the GM wants the players to provide all the content of the "World", how does a PC's concept and personality matter if the GM is just going to insist on PC actions that contradict those concepts and personalities anyway?
Besides there wanting to read some very short stories, it's increasingly clear to me that these "back-stories" are similar to so many employers who insist on a college diploma no matter what the field of study, and they serve the same purpose, just a way to clear the field.
I guess I failed to be clear: I was explaining what the GM involved is trying and failing to achieve, because he has a sense he should do something in that direction but doesn't properly know what he should do.

It's a failure to grasp that what he should be doing is saying what kind of motivation and personality types he wants, and asking players to make PCs that fit.

The problem is people see railroading bad as they are only thinking of the extreme of the jerk DM. It's like saying anything is bad, because of the actions of a few.
Are you deliberately ignoring people when they tell you why this is wrong? I have yet to see you respond to direct refutations of this baldly false claim.


See the part where you say ''the DM decides what happens next'' : that is the railroading part.
AH-HAH!

Here is your big problem!

This is simply not true. The GM deciding how an NPC reacts or that, after the barbarian drops a glass, it breaks on the floor, is not railroading.

Period.

It isn't "good railroading." Because it is not railroading at all. By definition. GMs having things happen based on what player characters do (rather than in spite of what they do) is not railroading. It's running the game. Railroading is no-selling the players' actions when those actions are not on the GM's pre-defined path, or warping the game to force the players to make he desired choices.

A railroad requires rails. Pretending that the GM having things happen is railroading is not useful. Claiming it is makes you look either foolish or like a troll.



So..using the Worm plot....a railraod DM ''tells'' the Pcs they ''must'' stop the worm from destroying the town...and the sandbox DM just says ''there is a worm eating the town, do whatever you want." Lets say both groups fight and kill the worm. The railroad DM has the mayor ask for help after the worm attack..railroad plot as the Pc's ''must'' stop the cult of the worm. The sandbox DM just sits back and says ''whatever you guys want to do, lets do it''....but if the Sandbox DM ''improvises'' that the mayor will ''react'' by asking the Pc's for help...that is not railroading, right?
It is only a railroad if the PCs are compelled to wait for the mayor to ask them for help, then compelled to agree to it as the mayor requests, then pursue the cult by doing the sequence of events the DM planned. And to get to the climactic scene exactly as the DM envisioned.

A non-railroad allows the PCs to pursue it however they like. Or ignore it. Or try to take over the cult. Or wait for the worm to destroy their rival adventure guilds before acting. Or find out where he cult meets and send in hired assassins. Or even say, "screw it, we are running with or stuff and finding someplace the worm cult hasn't yet reached to build up an army to take them on."



Again, the GM deciding that the mayor reacts to the PCs' initial success by asking them for help isn't railroading. That's just validating their actions in the setting. Not every decision the DM makes without "rolling randomly" is railroading.

Railroading requires there already be rails, and that the goal be to get the party back on them when they stray. If you're building "new rails" to accommodate the players' choices, it isn't a railroad. It's a sandbox you're having react to the PCs and their choices.

Solaris
2016-11-20, 05:45 PM
I'll let you in on a secret. This is not a 21th century phenomenon, there is no new radical philosophy behind this nor is it the latest style of game. It called doing a bad job and it has been around forever if not longer. I would direct you towards one of the bad player/GM threads but we don't have an active one right now. I think. Which I think is a good sign but does mean we don't have the venting grounds/support group/whatever you want from it they provided.

Err... that may have come off as me belittling your bad time. I don't mean to, I'm sure (from your actions) it was an unpleasant time. I just mean to say that I don't believe there is any great significance beyond that you had a bad game. Or games, is this the same game?

I am curious as to the possibility that the rise of the interwebs has allowed both bad DMs and bad players easier access to the general public as well as making it easier for them to escape criticism for their bad behavior.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-20, 05:50 PM
The problem is people see railroading bad as they are only thinking of the extreme of the jerk DM. It's like saying anything is bad, because of the actions of a few.


The problem is that you keep insisting on using your own special snowflake "meaning" of "railroad" and then accusing other people of making an error.




AH-HAH!

Here is your big problem!

This is simply not true. The GM deciding how an NPC reacts or that, after the barbarian drops a glass, it breaks on the floor, is not railroading.

Period.

It isn't "good railroading." Because it is not railroading at all. By definition. GMs having things happen based on what player characters do (rather than in spite of what they do) is not railroading. It's running the game. Railroading is no-selling the players' actions when those actions are not on the GM's pre-defined path, or warping the game to force the players to make he desired choices.

A railroad requires rails. Pretending that the GM having things happen is railroading is not useful. Claiming it is makes you look either foolish or like a troll.


Exactly.

Cause and effect... is not railroading.
NPCs reacting to what the players do or NPCs having their own plans... is not railroading.
The GM making a decision about something... is not railroading.

Cluedrew
2016-11-20, 05:51 PM
To Solaris: That might be true. A related possibility is that the internet allows for stories of bad players (includes GMs) to spread further. Throw in some nostalgia for the good old days and everything looks like it is going down hill.

2D8HP
2016-11-20, 05:58 PM
Oh, I don't know about that.
Bad DMs and sociopatahs have been around since the get-go.Very true, but.... the bad DM'ing I remember from the 1970's and 80's was more along the lines of surreal "Alice in Wonderland meets Monty Python on LSD" scenarios (yes that bad), however "adventure paths" to follow instead of locations to explore is new (to me), as is the "back-storiy audition" requirement.

I wouldn't mind so much the back-story writing homework assignment, or the mild railroading, it's being both required to submit a back-story for DM approval, and then being told by multiple DM's to not role-play out actions that make sense given the back-story they required, and to instead "follow the path" that's got me steamed.


*I don't believe there is any great significance beyond that you had a bad game. Or games, is this the same game? The extreme "Empty Room" game was thankfully just one DM, but sadly the DM's requiring homework that they then ignore and railroad over has been many and most of the 21st Century DM's I have encountered.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-11-20, 06:07 PM
The simple fact is most RPG's (not all) are the DM telling the story. One of the big, main jobs of the DM is as Storyteller.

This thinking right here is the fundamental problem. The job of a GM is not to tell a story. If you want to tell a story then go write a book.

The job of a GM is to provide the entire group with the means to do things that could collectively be looked back on after the fact as a story.

thirdkingdom
2016-11-20, 06:35 PM
This thinking right here is the fundamental problem. The job of a GM is not to tell a story. If you want to tell a story then go write a book.

The job of a GM is to provide the entire group with the means to do things that could collectively be looked back on after the fact as a story.

Michael Mornard, one of the original players in Gygax's game, has said before that the story is what emerges through play, not what is planned in advance. That is one reason I like limiting PC back stories to around 50 words.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-20, 06:49 PM
Very true, but.... the bad DM'ing I remember from the 1970's and 80's was more along the lines of surreal "Alice in Wonderland meets Monty Python on LSD" scenarios (yes that bad), however "adventure paths" to follow instead of locations to explore is new (to me), as is the "back-storiy audition" requirement.

I wouldn't mind so much the back-story writing homework assignment, or the mild railroading, it's being both required to submit a back-story for DM approval, and then being told by multiple DM's to not role-play out actions that make sense given the back-story they required, and to instead "follow the path" that's got me steamed.

The extreme "Empty Room" game was thankfully just one DM, but sadly the DM's requiring homework that they then ignore and railroad over has been many and most of the 21st Century DM's I have encountered.


The DM demanding a backstory in great detail and then ignoring that backstory to do what he wanted anyway... would make me very disappointed... and angry. Being railroaded into what the DM wanted you to do anyway even after he specifically said "you have to tell me what you want to my satisfaction before you can join the game" would be rotten. It's a waste of time and a violation of basic player agency.


What I suspect might be going on here is bad implementation of otherwise useful ideas, by novice or just bad GMs. They read somewhere that "good characters have backstories", so they demand backstories. But then they also started the game because they had a specific sort of story in mind, and didn't really tell you enough to let you shape your character to fit that story. And somewhere they read a couple articles about "RPGs as storytelling" but really don't understand the collaborative part of that, or that maybe they should be running a "story game" instead of the sort of RPG that they're running.



Michael Mornard, one of the original players in Gygax's game, has said before that the story is what emerges through play, not what is planned in advance. That is one reason I like limiting PC back stories to around 50 words.

I don't think the two are necessarily as linked as that --unless one specifically wants BACKstory to emerge through play. What came before the campaign started is not what comes after it starts, but rather the foundation.

oxybe
2016-11-20, 08:00 PM
DU, stop saying "random stuff happens in a sandbox".

We've explained it to you countless times that it's not random in any form, or at least not random as understood by any native english speaker (or in my case, a non-native english speaker) so at this point i'm going to assume you either lack the will, want or ability to attempt to understand that and you're trolling on that part.

Second, you keep throwing the word plot, but in such a loose way as you attempt to use it to define any sort of, up to the very existence of, a narrative or scenario that you're not helping anyone, especially yourself and whatever points you're trying to make... this doesn't help discussion and only furthers muddle it. see: "random stuff above".

Plot, when talking about narrative, is a loaded word. Plot assumes a singular writer at the helm of the narrative, making sure everything goes according to his wishes in the preordained sequence he wants. Movies have plot. Books have a plot. Videogames have a plot.

Language used is important. Language is how you communicate ideas, but it requires both parties to use a shared if you want to be clear and your ideas understood. As someone who works in a technical field and has to deal with 2 different languages, sometimes almost simultaneously, language is really important when you want to get ideas across.

So please, if you're going to use words, either find a good way to convince us to use your definition or at least deign to use ours while conversing with us, otherwise we'll make no progress.

Onto the actual discussion.

Sandbox campaigns don't have plot. Most games outside of the railroaded ones don't have a plot... they have scenarios.

It outlines a situation or setting to act as a background for the characters' actions. Really, Sandbox games have more in common (in a narrative structure sense, i mean) with "Scenes from a hat" then "Harry Potter"

The GM, who we'll call "Drew", lays the scene out for our players from behind his deskscreen: "The Worm of Wildwood attacks a town, the mayor asks for your help".

At that point if the players want to deal with the worm or not. NPCs can suggest methods and requests, but the end result is that the PCs are free to handle it how they want. This can mean disposing of the worm or leaving the town to fend for itself.

If (our theoretical player) Wayne thinks that (again, theoretical player) Ryan is crazy for wanting to go after the worm and asks to run, this is the player's prerogative... They're free to handle a situation as they see fit. If they can't, that their only option in how to proceed is Y, then they're being railroaded.

It's not randomness. Though I'm sure this is all pointless blathering as DU will just reply with his old rhetoric, at least the rest of us are having a discussion.

...

Well, we all know that Colin's character would hand Ryan's character a bottle of "Dr.Heinz' Fantastic Worm Repellent and Fungal Removal Balm" and tell him to go at 'em with a **** eating grin on his face.

Stormwalker
2016-11-20, 11:26 PM
My usual DM is absolutely great about planning complex, detailed adventures with good hooks that encourage the players to pursue the goals the DM has planned out. He usually seeds these hooks with details from the players' backgrounds to help ensure the players are interested (and will generally work with us in character generation so he knows things like what motivates our characters, and helps us flesh out our backgrounds enough to give him material to work with). This is great, and I would absolutely not want it any other way.

That said, what takes him from being a good DM to being a great DM is that he will absolutely still let us sidetrack things if we want to. In fact, he's remarkably good at finding ways to incorporate the unexpected things we as players do into his overall plan so that we feel like we're in control but he still gets us where he wants us in the end. It makes the adventures really fun because we feel like our characters have agency in the plot, but we still get these rich, detailed stories that the DM put all this work into making great.

As an example:
I once sidetracked a new campaign (and we stayed sidetracked for three whole sessions) in the first ten minutes of the first session, simply because my character was a little too paranoid and thought the local baron was planning to conscript her and the rest of the party into his army (so she talked the rest of the party into hiding out and later skipping town). The DM handled it so smoothly that we didn't even realize we had sidetracked it until quite some time later when the baron's emissaries finally caught up to us toward the end of the third session and told us that he'd actually wanted to hire us for something only distantly related (and which, based on the new information we had learned during our sidetrack, we had more incentive to do).

By this time, a great deal of hijinks had ensued, and the DM had basically improvised his way through the rest of the first session, then quickly thrown together information for the city we had run off to (incorporating things he had planned to appear later in the main plot) before the next session. .

It was brilliant. We all had a great time. And then when we DID get back to the main plot, we felt like our sidetrack had accomplished something rather than just derailing the campaign. This has since been the model for me of how to handle PC's going off the rails - I can't claim to be as good at it as he is, but I've tried to incorporate his methods and had some success with it.

So... I love the DM-led campaign. But the best DM-led campaign is the one where the DM will give the players a fair amount of leeway to do things their own way. It's the best of both worlds.